If you have followed the ongoing volumes of discussion in the gender war, you are familiar with a constantly regurgitated bit of feminist claptrap.
Feminism isn’t anti-male, it is anti-patriarchal and of course, it‘s about equality.
Sure it is.
We should consider, though, that in their constant attempt to reshape reality to fit the needs of the moment, there is a dirty little secret that feminists continually keep from themselves. Well, one among many. This one is called reproductive strategy. And without understanding that, you can’t understand why and how we developed a patriarchal system.
It is really simple. Men are wired to do whatever it takes to be selected by women for mating. Women are wired to select men that are dominant and aggressive, e.g. patriarchal.
Do I need to say that again?
Do you ever wonder why men like Scott Peterson show up at death row with a stack of marriage proposals waiting for them? That’s what happened, and the proposals came from women who only knew one thing about him: He savagely murdered his wife, cutting his own baby from her abdomen and dumped them both out of a boat into the bay.
How is that for marriage material?
It isn’t any different with Joran van der Sloot. After skating on the Holloway murder, van der Sloot became a sexual celebrity. Everywhere he went, young women in their sexual prime threw themselves at him like he was Mick Jagger.
Something about the missing body of a young girl and his fingerprints all over the case acted like Spanish Fly on these women.
Of course, he killed again. And of course, his marriage proposals started rolling in as well.
Here, by the way, is the video of Joran and his last victim, Stephany Flores, checking into the hotel room in Lima, Peru, where he would kill her. Watch it closely.
Did you get the way she followed him like an obedient dog? Note the two steps behind and head bowed like a Geisha body language. It is the age old false female submission to male authority, killer authority, in order to have access and eventual control of that power. It is the same type of power that has been making women wet and tingly since the prehistoric plains of the African savanna.
Are the women gone ga ga for Peterson and van der Sloot the exceptions to the rule?
No.
What they are is more extreme examples of the norm. Everyone eats, and in every culture there is a certain percentage of people that eat to the point of obesity. It doesn’t make eating abnormal, it just points to some abnormal eating. These women are the same type of phenomena.
They are attracted to killers for the same reasons that the average young woman is attracted to thugs, bad boys on motorcycles, rock stars and politicians as ugly as Henry Kissinger. It is all about power. Power to protect, power to provide, power to dominate and control.
Power to be corralled and used.
When all that power gets channeled into a box and served up on a platter for women’s benefit, you have the ultimate aphrodisiac. There’s your patriarchy in a nutshell, and all the laws, codes, social norms and gender roles that came with it. Women use the illusion of submission and being demure, coupled with sexual appeal, to get men to perform for their benefit.
Ultimately the master is the slave. He lives under the illusion of power, when in reality he is only the provider of it.
And this of course explains why feminism has not resulted in equality, but only more privilege for women. Feminism only takes what is already there, the female drive to benefit from the power acquired by men, power that almost all women are incapable of gaining on their own, and takes it to the extreme level. In that light, feminism is an extreme that showed up in normal sexual life, just like a letter bearing a marriage proposal on death row.
And as always of course, the chief enablers of all this are men jockeying for sexual approval/selection.
As I have said before, take it up with God or Darwin as you please, but don’t blame me for telling the truth.
But that truth, in these modern times, presents a unique dilemma for men, at least the ones that have pulled their heads out and started to read the writing on the wall.
The acquisition of all the power needed to attract women brought with it a rather unfortunate consequence.
Disposabilty.
Pulling 12 hours in a coal mine with trembling walls and death in the air you breathe is a high price to enable a woman to remain at home taking care of children, especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.
If you are fortunate enough to be alpha material, you get to own or run the coal mine, have men do the digging for you and perhaps even have some of their wives yield to the tingle you give them while hubby is down in the depths doing what a man has to do.
But this is really where we run into a wall that is unscaleable in the movement toward this incredulous thing called “sexual equality.”
The minute that man takes a real look at what he is doing and decides less money is a better option, then that is where hypergamy kicks in to overdrive with the wife and he loses her.
The very moment he values his safety and quality of life more than he values her standard of living, the clock starts on her departure.
Without playing by the same rules that gave us patriarchy, there is no real connection between men and women. The men who undermine patriarchy in the only real way it can be undermined, by refusing to take care of women, are automatically reduced to the status of loser and placed on the sexual sidelines.
The only answer to this is to open the door for women on the way out, and perhaps give them a little shove as they go. It’s the feminist equalitarian thing to do, after all. These men should be lionized by Steinem, et al, because it frees women from all the “oppressive” patriarchy that comes with marriage (which they will then, invariably, look to get from some other man) and it allows the man, at least in the case of a coal miner, to add a decade or so to his life span and perhaps enjoy it a little more.
If feminism were about being either anti patriarchy or pro equality, the only focus it would have had would be on challenging women to quit picking the most powerful provider that they can and using them to live as close to the state of royalty as possible.
It would have also told women to put down books and pick up shovels.
Instead, what we have is women dominating the work force in the most cushy jobs available, many of them low paying, while men still bear the brunt of often fatal occupational hazards so they can make enough money to be an attractive provider. Whatever financial gaps result in this for women, they simply use The State, that ultimate expression of patriarchy, to fill in.
And do you think these under employed women are more prone to marrying down than any other woman?
Let‘s be real here, all feminism has done is give women a new place to kick back and take it easy while men ante up the blood, sweat and tears. And it leaves their supposedly lamented patriarchy safe and completely intact, ready to do their bidding in any way they want.
Same as it ever was.
Tags: Culture, Feminism, Masculinity, Patriarchy, Paul Elam, Zeta Masculinity
440 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
Roderick1268:
db917:
FarmCat:
blueface:
i’ve always said women have the best of the old and the best of the new
I’m male and am tired many aspects of feminism that are incompatible with equality but this post is still batshit insane.
Your referencing of serial killers and violence against women is also disturbing.
@ Peter
In my experience there are three kinds of people who comment on threads. Contributors, who either support of argue against the OP, trolls, who seek to inspire chaos, and seagulls, who flap in, squawk a lot, shit on everything and then fly out.
Let’s see which one you are.
First, if you are able to, you need to support the idea that the OP is “insane,” hopefully with more than the childish, unsubstantiated allegation.
Two, why is it you are disturbed about the references to serial killers and violence against women? Are you so insanely PC that you don’t see the benefit to women examining why so many of them are attracted to this type of personality? Would you rather we just say that thug attraction does not exist?
The floor is yours if you want to make a case here, but if you are fed up with the incompatibility of feminism with equality, then your best bet is to stop acting like a feminist and put your ideas on the table to be openly evaluated by all readers.
Anything less is a cop out.
Yep, another grand slam of an essay. Equality between the sexes is impossible because men will not allow women to suffer pain, while women want a man with enough strength to protect them from it. Lifting the “repressive” burden and obligation of women to, in some manner, serve society can only result in an explosive growth in female supremacy without bounds.
“Ladies love outlaws, like babies love stray dogs.” (RIP, Waylon Jennings.) And even after the outlaws mistreat them & the stray dogs bite, neither the ladies nor the babies learn a thing.
The Oak Ridge Boys have sung, “Tryin’ to love 2 women is like a ball & chain.” Nowadays I’d say the same of being in a r’ship with even one woman. Right on about the “master” ending up as the slave!
George Washington once wrote, “No nation can be trusted farther than it is bound by its own interests.” By the same token, we guys can trust women only as far as they are bound by their own interests. Caveat andro!
I forgot why I liked you so much at first. Your writing.
Wow,,,,a lot of manginas commenting.
I only counted one possible.
There will be more of hen-pecked men opposing your views.
Great article Paul. This is the big problem, the fact that both feminist/needy women and chivalrous/powerful men are the oppressors of men. For men to attain and maintain power, they must have the support of women.
Mangina is a bit premature. However, there are a lot of men who naturally and instinctively defer to women’s needs and desires. There are many men who don’t understand or appreciate the gender imbalance and impact that it has on society.
As Grant Brown wrote:
“Feminism has enjoyed remarkable success, in an historically short period of time, reshaping society to eliminate the disadvantages suffered by women under traditional gender norms. This success has been possible only because feminism preys on a powerful, natural inclination of deference to women that is bred into both men and women alike. If women feel passionately about wanting something, it just isn’t manly or prudent for men, individually or collectively, to deny it to them. In the ideological battle of the sexes, it is of the first importance to understand the origins and power of this innate inclination of deference to women.”
and Pelle Billing wrote:
“The contemporary feminist discourse tends to focus exclusively on the fact that important and influential roles in society are filled by men in a patriarchy, and use this observation to conclude that patriarchy is about male dominance and male power. Through this generalization, the power of a small subset of men, is taken to represent all men, without investigating whether other men really have any power. Another factor that also isn’t investigated is whether the small subset of men with power use their power to help other men. If not, it cannot really be said to be a male power.”
Unknown quote:
“Women receive worth and men’s chivalry just for being women. They are put on a pedestal just for being women. Men must earn their trip to the pedestal. As a result, men’s pedestal is a little higher. This results in 3 levels. Nearly all men are in the lowest level—no pedestal. All women occupy the middle level. And just a few high-achieving men make it to the highest level. It is men who must earn their value, by being the best, richest, highest status, etc.”
So, what do we do about it? Facts aren’t enough, because they are always dwarfed by the influence of the mainstream media.
Regarding *some* women attracted to violent men. It’s a primitive instinct that women are attracted to powerful men.
It’s true, nice guys finish last and get used. Whereas abusive douche bags are very popular with women. Consider the popularity of Twilight among middle aged women(pedos?) and teenage girls. Twilight portrays many aspects of abusive relationships and is a very popular romantic drama.
I’m not suggesting that men should disrepect women, what I am suggesting is that men should respect themselves more.
@ Denis
Great post, and good quote from Pelle. I think he is shaping up to be one of the great ones in the future.
Peter? Peter?
Just as I thought.
The Badger is back.
I am an alpha male, but i’m a nice guy too and im known for it. A nice guy who doesnt lay on his back. Women sexually seem to want somebody that they feel safe with in their arms- a protector. And mentally they want a provider (that is to say somebody with money). Of course some women wanted the serial killer! He was strong- like a protector; they just didnt have enough brains to know the difference beween a good and bad protector…
LOL, a CBS NEWS affiliate has picked up on this article.
http://www.cbs42.com/mostpopular/story/Van-der-Sloot-analysis-Blaming-the-victims/k6Y6DwRS_k2elOEENwlSAA.cspx
Women are attracted to serial killers? Yea, some might be, and I’d advise them to seek help for that, but this in no way is an accurate representation of the majority of women.
As a male feminist I feel that I can say with some confidence that feminism is not anti-male, granted I’ve met many a misandrist who annoy me to no end, but feminism is about gaining equality between the sexes, not advancing women beyond men.
Is there still a need for feminism? Of course. In a world that still has female genital mutilation (male genital mutilation also needs to stop), a massive gender pay gap, domestic abuse that still sides heavily on more women being abused, idiotic gender role stereotypes for both men and women which then lead the courts to lump a woman with a child upon divorce and restrict men from having an equal opportunity to be a main or sole carer; in a world like that, feminism is still needed.
‘But women are, and want to be, looked after by their male provider.’
Why is this seen as a good thing? Women are more than capable of taking care of themselves and don’t wish to be treated as an invalid.
As for women having the ability to ‘dispose’ of a man when their usefulness runs out, men have exactly the same capability. In fact men tend to enjoy social acceptance of this, being called a stud or ladies man, whereas a woman can be called a slut or a whore.
And finally, women do go into jobs where their lives are at risk, there are female builders, police and fire officers, soldiers, and coal miners, and I’m sure there would have been many more had women not been restricted from working for so long. Even still, many of these jobs are physically demanding, and just as there are many men who could not meet the physical requirements, even more women couldn’t either, due to being naturally weaker than men.
Nice, and they make no reference to the lengthy section of the essay talking about how men have and continue to break their backs to maintain civilization, so the part about women “kicking back” will sound absolutely insane to anyone who has not read the original article. Women reading it will think, “What?! My real estate job is sooo stressful! There is no man anywhere giving me anything!”
The fact that modern journalists are incapable of reporting issues accurately forces me to call into question ALL of recorded history.
Well, it’s good that the mainstream media is writing about these issues. The accusation of blaming the victim is weak, Paul didn’t blame Stephany Flores for her own demise.
It is appropriate to critisize women’s natural attraction to violent/powerful men, while they reject/use the nice and average guys.
David,
Look into the US Department of labor study on the “Gender Gap”, it is caused by women’s personal choices, NOT discrimination.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
Also refer to the National Family Violence Legislative Resource center for information on Domestic Violence.
http://www.nfvlrc.org/
Lots of experts huh? Read the policy statement and if your interest is piqued, read the research.
Are you surprised at the lies that feminists have been promoting? Don’t be, there’s more.
Do your own research, think for yourself.
David,
I have to refer you to the feminist and mangina page, link at top.
IF you want to comment here, you need to dispense with the misandry and brainwashed POV and at least get real. To wit, you say:
Women are attracted to serial killers? Yea, some might be, and I’d advise them to seek help for that, but this in no way is an accurate representation of the majority of women.
One should always start with the basics, in this case actually reading what I said. I said those women were extremes on a continuum, not that they represented all women. If you want to critique fine, but stick with the facts already.
Next, and this is most telling about your POV. You say:
Is there still a need for feminism? Of course. In a world that still has female genital mutilation (male genital mutilation also needs to stop), a massive gender pay gap, domestic abuse that still sides heavily on more women being abused, idiotic gender role stereotypes for both men and women which then lead the courts to lump a woman with a child upon divorce and restrict men from having an equal opportunity to be a main or sole carer; in a world like that, feminism is still needed.
There is so much wrong with all of this, it is most discouraging. I am glad you saw fit to include male genital mutilation, in frigging parenthesis! We already have strong laws across the west against female GM, but male GM is carried out routinely in every hospital that delivers babies. And you put that in parenthesis, as some sort of side note?
Please.
A massive gender pay gap? You are brainwashed dude, check out the video here so you can get some education on the subject vs the feminist disinformation you are used to.
DV that side more heavily on women being abused?
That is an outright myth. Back to the video resources for you!
The first half of your astoundingly erroneous post is all I have time for, perhaps someone else will pick up with the rest.
Consider this a free course in turning the lights on in your head, David. The only question is whether you want to CHOOSE to remain in the dark.
@ David
“And finally, women do go into jobs where their lives are at risk, there are female builders, police and fire officers, soldiers, and coal miners, and I’m sure there would have been many more had women not been restricted from working for so long. Even still, many of these jobs are physically demanding, and just as there are many men who could not meet the physical requirements, even more women couldn’t either, due to being naturally weaker than men.”
I want you to read this again.
“As a male feminist I feel that I can say with some confidence that feminism is not anti-male, granted I’ve met many a misandrist who annoy me to no end, but feminism is about gaining equality between the sexes, not advancing women beyond men.”
So your position is that we all need to be equal even though your physical observations of the material world are that we are not? Maybe I’m just being obtuse (doubtful but plausible), but you sound dumb!
@ Paul
“DV that side more heavily on women being abused?
That is an outright myth. Back to the video resources for you!”
Paul, you are awesome!
@ Paul
Don’t mean to get off topic too much, but just wanted to see how things were going in Texas with those 2 ranches that got attacked?
David? Peter?
Thought so.
The Badger is back
“which then lead the courts to lump a woman with a child upon divorce and restrict men from having an equal opportunity to be a main or sole carer; in a world like that, feminism is still needed.”
To “lump” a women with her child upon divorce. Lump?
And feminism actively seeks to PREVENT men from getting equal custody. Its in the best interests of the children they say to stay with the primary care-giver, or too many men are controlling and abusive and will use the children as a pawn. Its women who use their children as pawns. You can believe that. I’d be more fine with the primary care-giver argument if women would let men be house husbands, but most won’t even think about it.
And from what I’ve seen and heard, most single dads do a better job raising children than single moms anyways. We could analyze that reality, but I don’t think you’re ready for that yet.
@ Joseph,
I have not heard a thing. I pretty much stay away from MS News, unless I have to. What happened?
@ Paul
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d24-Los-Zetas-drug-cartel-takes-control-2-US-ranches-in-Texas
Mexican drug runners getting aggressive!
whenever I hear females say”….I need a man with some game”……I knew that they were just as you described here, but I never put it into words like you just did. It appears as though a feminist is just a female who envies men. This was a nice article.
I was once questioned about a young and beautiful woman’s death…
I wrote this story a while ago – it confirms your hypothesis Mr. Paul Elam:
http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/07/got-whale-of-tale-to-tell-ya.html
@Paul,
You have a point. However, I think using extreme examples can put cotton in your reader’s ears, so to speak. For example, referencing the video, you write:
“It is the age old false female submission to male authority, killer authority, in order to have access and eventual control of that power.”
In this instance, that is clearly false. The woman was killed by that man. How is that controlling his authority? Why use an example like that to make a point that it doesn’t make?
You sound like you’re justifying your use of these extreme examples when you write:
“Are the women gone ga ga for Peterson and van der Sloot the exceptions to the rule?
No.
What they are is more extreme examples of the norm.”
Exactly. VERY extreme. WAY outside the bell curve. I’m a scientist. I know better than to draw conclusions about the area under the curve based on the outliers. You could be very eloquent on how some women are attracted to violent men without using serial killers as if they were bread and butter for the argument. They’re not.
Seriously, you have so much to teach, but I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot with your own provocative style. Some of your converts will be able to read beyond it, hell, some of them love it. But I continue to believe that it’s more important to educate than anything. You have a lot to say without resorting to shock tactics that could drive potential learners away.
I know, I know, it’s your site and you’ll do what you want. I’m just sayin.
This is something every man and woman should read.
I myself have been attracted to guys that are a little on the wilder side and have learned exactly how girls can get caught in the mess.
While the serial killer example is an extreme example, that could easily be changed to women who fall for the “bad boy” or stay with a guy that shows obvious signs of being an abuser.
I want a man that protects me but in no way is that being submissive. It means that I trust that he will look after me, as I will look after him. For me, a relationship goes both ways and much share responsibilities. There are things that I can’t possibly do as a woman, even if I tried. Just like there are certain things men can’t do, even if they tried. We are equal but also different. We compliment each other and designed to make life better for the both of us.
Feminism is destroying the way we are suppose to compliment each other and work together as a team. They go against women that are proud to be feminine and guys that are proud to be masculine. I’m not saying masculine women or feminine men are bad, just saying that feminism is usually towards anyone being proud of their traditional norms.
Feminism does NOT promote equality, for if it did, they would be defending men and make sure women are owning up to their responsibilities. To make sure women are being held accountable to their crimes and actions.
“I’m a scientist.”
Shit, then you must be right.
The only thing more pathetic than the appeal to credentials is when the credential appealed to is “I’m a male feminist and I think etc.”
Peggy,
You make good criticisms. Extreme examples are not representative of the norm, which is something that I have always critisized about feminist propaganda in domestic violence.
However, as boring is it sounds to talk about normal people…girls like bad boys and nice guys get used and abused. There are lots of beta-males under women’s authority, some bad boys and very few killers.
Paul,
Keep being provocative, push the limits, take the criticism and adjust your strategy.
@Haute – Great post, thank you!
@ Haute
I think your sentiments are excellent, but the problem for western men as a whole I think is that they cannot depend on this type of thinking in the average woman. It is all laudable, but the consequences in investing in it are too high for men, the system too rigged against them when things go south.
And I do hope that you got from the article that when I talked about killers, I was certainly talking about the extreme. I don’t think most women would go for a killer, but there are a noticable amount of them who do.
@ Denis
Not to worry brother. I am just getting warmed up. I am going to have to find some filler over the next couple of days, as I am writing a follow up to the nullification piece that is a lot more detailed and supported.
This is one I am not going to leave alone, despite anyone feeling it is extreme. I also happen to think that innocent men spending years in prisons getting raped and tortured because of false allegations is pretty extreme as well.
It is going on all the time, and those men deserve more than a “tsk. tsk, I wish we had a better system.”
And no Mr. Snark, that was not directed at you. After all, the charge that I am being extreme is true and correct. But I mean that in the best possible way.
As they say, extreme circumstances call for extreme measures.
Haute,
By expecting men to protect you, you are supporting feminine privilege and beta-male enforcers. Chivalry is dead and men are starting to understand “equality”.
I wouldn’t take a bullet for any woman! I’m not asking for much, just a woman who pays her way and mows the lawn while I make dinner and play with the kids.
Paul Elam said:
As they say, extreme circumstances call for extreme measures
Great point. Your jury nullification article speaks to the above.
@Denis,
I read Haute’s comments about protection as mutual care. She said “It means that I trust that he will look after me, as I will look after him.” In an equal, respectful relationship, you look after each other, whatever anatomy is between your legs. In my opinion.
I agree that women should not expect anything from men, certainly nothing just based on the fact that they are men. Same goes in reverse.
I guess what I’m hearing from the men here is that many men need to go to the extreme of basically rejecting women before they can come back to a middle ground where they can have a mutually respectful relationship.
More power to you/them, then. I just hope we don’t lose you all forever!
Peggy, it’s not a matter of rejecting women, it’s about teaching women the true nature of equality, rather than accepting gender roles defined by women.
It’s not extreme to avoid princesses that expect special treatment and pervert the true nature of equality. The only thing that I can think of that she “can’t possibly do as a woman” is pee standing up without messing her shoes. Everything else is possible.
@ Peggy
I am going to assume you are probably in your mid-life. Take this from a young guy who is just coming into his prime, the women in this country my age and younger are out of their minds! They have no concept of discipline or responsibility. They can talk with the best of them but their actions paint an entirely different picture. It’s not going to an extreme to want to get away from Western women entirely. They are toxic human beings. It is dangerous physically (many of them have STD’s), economically (look at hulk hogan’s ex and her new yacht the alimoney), religiously (these girls are some of the MOST entitled I have seen), etc.. Even the best of them slip into the entitled mentality far too frequently.
We as men are expected in society to take the majority of the risks, but the rewards for doing so grow fewer and fewer. Women want equal pay. You hear them talk about the “glass ceiling” all the time. You never hear them mention the “glass basement” or death professions that men sign up for. The 25 most dangerous job are all 95% male employment professions. These jobs pay well because the men are expected to put their lives on the line. Women want equal pay and not to have to take the same risks.
“I guess what I’m hearing from the men here is that many men need to go to the extreme of basically rejecting women before they can come back to a middle ground where they can have a mutually respectful relationship.
More power to you/them, then. I just hope we don’t lose you all forever!”
You aren’t loosing us. We are being driven away! It is dangerous for us to be near you! This isn’t something we as men can fix alone. I hear it in your posts all the time that a reasonable middle is what we should aim for. Women in this country don’t respond to reason Peggy. So we have to present them with an unreasonable alternative to get their attention (ei: they have to step up and start living like the rest of us, on their own dime, with their own sweat, and putting their own bodies on the line.)
You’re a scientist, for every reaction there is an _______ but opposite reaction. This is the equal reaction to what has been foisted on us. It’s just reality trying to balance out again.
well thought out point Joesph but most women will call you a misogynist for pointing out reality.
If by misogynist, you mean a man who wants women to prove they are my equal by their actions (which hasn’t happened yet) or I don’t believe them? Then I accept their analysis!
“It’s not extreme to avoid princesses that expect special treatment and pervert the true nature of equality. The only thing that I can think of that she “can’t possibly do as a woman” is pee standing up without messing her shoes. Everything else is possible.”
@Denis – how do you know she can’t pee standing up without messing her shoes?
@Joseph – I see your point, I do. If those are the kind of women that surround you, by all means avoid them! I am middle aged, and have worked all my life, and am surrounded by professional women, some of whom support their stay-at-home husbands, so my view is jaundiced by my own experience. I also work at a University, and most of the women students I see here don’t fit your description, I don’t think. One of the reasons I come to this website is to try to see with a different viewpoint, something at which I often fail.
I also agree that people don’t really change unless they are uncomfortable enough. Those weren’t your words – you said “women in this country don’t respond to reason” – but I think we mean essentially the same thing. If you refuse to let a woman manipulate you, and that makes her uncomfortable enough, maybe she will learn “the true nature of equality” as Denis puts it.
One question I have about those “glass basement” jobs and about men not taking care of women. If a man doesn’t marry, decides he wants to just take care of himself, he still has to find a job to support himself. I don’t see how taking a dependent wife or family out of the picture makes the work choices any better for men. He’ll still have to work, probably full time in order to make enough just to support himself.
Unless you are advocating that the men become the pampered princesses.
It’s a joke, scat, don’t get your knickers in a twist.
Well said Joseph,
As a 39 YRO professional / scientist working in the real world (not a social scientist, not at a sheltered liberal university), I agree completely.
Equality is something that is shown by actions, not words and interpretation of equality as his jobs and her jobs. As well as having a home by the lake with a swimming pool, I’m also very handy. Women don’t automatically understand the value of a man’s efforts if they have never experienced it themselves and everything has always been given to them. With all of the d-bags and players out there (better than marriage), a man can be straight forward with women and have high standards.
Things that are easily acquired, obtained, or maintained, without any effort or sacrifice, lack value… it’s human nature.
Peggy, the sad fact is that with 40% males in university, the gender roles will be completely reversed in a few generations. The decline of males is apparently a victory for women.
“I wouldn’t take a bullet for any woman!”
Facing a life and death situation together is the greatest example of equality. Perhaps, also the best indicator of some fundamental difference between men and women. Are women generally wimps or is that just a false stereotype? Why aren’t more women in the military where weapons are the great equalizer?
To clarify…I would only die for the protection of my equals and allies.
I know it’s coming so to quote Paul Elam:
Misogynist: A man who thinks women are rational, intelligent, mature human beings and expects them to act that way.
@ Peggy
“I am middle aged, and have worked all my life, and am surrounded by professional women, some of whom support their stay-at-home husbands, so my view is jaundiced by my own experience.”
I am going to start here. Please understand that this is in no way meant to be derogatory towards you as it may take that appearance (text lacks the tone and body language that would carry the appropriatemeaning that I wish to convey).
To begin with, I promise you, those men who are stay at home husbands will not enjoy that privilege long. Those women who are supporting them will not let it continue indefinitely. Period. I would be curious as to how you know and what tone the women who told you said it in. Also, has that attitude begun to change as the months have dragged on. Those women are not getting their hypergamy quota satiated. Men are EXPECTED to work. Women are given the choice if finances will allow.
“I also work at a University, and most of the women students I see here don’t fit your description, I don’t think.”
As for the women themselves, we are talking about a controlled environment. There is a great book out there entitled Dumbing us Down that I think you should read. It is a bit scary when you think about it. Read it and you will begin to understand my view of any school here in the US.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/bookstore/dumbdnblum1.htm
Suffice it to say, the young girls you are talking about were at my college as well. They said all the right things. Did their homework. Made good grades. Were excellent students and many of them went on to become excellent employees at offices with controlled environments and a minimum of personal risk to themselves . Am I insulting them? No, I’m just saying that given the choice women opt for safety and comfort over the need for raw money making power. Men on the other hand, again, are expected to work, regardless. If they can’t pay the bills with a desk job, they need to go get a second job. Maybe they go get a more dangerous job that offers better pay. It is EXPECTED of them. It is not expected of women.
Secondly, those same girls that I just spoke of were absolutely insane on the weekends. Countless hookups, parties, STD’s were common among them, drinking, eating disorders, the works. They were every bit as bad as their male counterparts, and worse in some cases. Am I saying that men are good and women bad? No. I am saying that, as far as behavior is concerned, women rate right up there with men. So what’s the problem? Women have been told they are better. They often don’t come out and say this verbally, but their actions point to this. Men are villified for looking at a young woman in a lustful manner, Women in turn are not villified for looking at men in a financial manner. It’s the same thing. They both just want to get what they can out of the other and move on. But women’s thoughts are given the pass. When it comes time for divorce, women walk away with the kids and everything else. Why? It’s common knowledge that women make better parents right? No, but it is assumed by everyone.
All of that being said, it doesn’t change the fact that it is VERY dangerous for me to marry one. Maybe I haven’t made this point clear, I want to get married. It has always been something that I have wanted. It is just too dangerous to consider with the caliber of girls that currently exists in this country. They carry diseases literally from partner to partner. Here’s a great example.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/881539/Sex-and-the-City-fan-beds-1000-men.html
She is an extreme example. I know this, but she EXISTS! You would be hard pressed to find men on planet earth that have had sex with 1000 people or animals or anything! What happens to her? She gets into the news. Dating her is like asking to eat dynamite. It’s crazy. If this is the new extreme, then what is
the new norm? I can only imagine, but it’s probably around 10 men per girl on average. That is toxic. Literally. And we are creating more like her every day. I’ll bet she talked pretty well in front of her teachers too. And I’ll bet some of the teachers are on her list. As for your question about the glass basement, men can live quite comfortably on a fraction of what they earn. Guys don’t need nice houses. Nice furniture. Nice anything really. I know I don’t. I only put on deodorant for the sake of the other people in the room. Men can also do this without risk of personal harm. Why would we? We don’t have mouths to feed and even if we did, it’s not like they would say “Thanks Dad for all this electricity” Or “It sure is nice to have running water”. The recession has hit men far harder than women. People who are now saying that the time of men is over don’t realize that what they actually mean is that our civilization is over as we know it. If men are out of work, who is in the mines? Who is putting out the fires? Who’s collecting the garbage? Who’s fixing the roads? Who’s repairing electrical wiring? Who’s replacing roofing tiles? Who’s ?
This was long winded and I still only got a fraction of it in. I hope it makes sense as there is still so much to say.
Paul -
Misandry? I’m a self-hating man? You know next to nothing about me but willing say that I hate my own sex? I criticise misandry in my comment, you may care to read that again.
I never said that you were portraying ‘women being attracted to serial killers’ as the norm, rather I was agreeing with you, to a point. You’re right, this is not the norm, but you use this and then say that it shows that all women are natural submissive and want a big strong man to protect them, which a horrendously flawed conclusion.
I included MGM as a side note to FGM because MGM is not an issue for feminism, though certainly important none the less. And although FGM has been against the law for years, few arrests have been made (in the case of the UK, it’s been law for 25 years and no arrests have been made).
Women are disadvantaged by their own choices? Shorter hours and more time off? This might have something to do with the social expectation for women to look after the kids or still do the majority of the house work (something that 2nd wave feminism, in part, brought upon women with the attitude of ‘we can do absolutely everything on our own’ but that patriarchy propagates, that housework is women’s work).
Men do the more dangerous jobs, or at least dominate them? Yes, I agree, this is mainly due to women either still not being allowed to do these jobs (say fighting on the front line) or only allowed recently. Many of these jobs, being so male dominated, I’m sure are a daunting field to enter. I have a female friend (not a feminist I might add) who is doing engineering at university, unsurprisingly, she is the only woman there. She is not one to moan or complain, but she has mentioned that she gets treated like crap by the guys there (and no, I’m not trying to paint all men, or even male engineers, with the same brush).
On the topic of domestic abuse, no where is the term ‘violence’ defined, nor what is meant by ‘initiating’. Does this mean that women slapped their male partner to then have the male partner break her jaw, or is it blow for blow? I’d say it would lean more towards the former seeing as the male tends to be physically dominant.
In cases where women beat their male partners, yes I think there should be an equal punishment for the women compared to any punishment that would have been given the other way round. I know that in the UK there had been some large campaigns (TV, billboards, etc) about female to male domestic abuse, but again, I agree there needs to be more awareness.
A man may not be believed, nor feel that he should come forward out of fear of losing ‘man points’ (I honestly don’t mean to belittle the act, but I’m tired and currently that’s the best way I can think of putting that, perhaps you can improve on it). However, what is the root cause of these problems? I would say that it is the social expectation that men are strong and authority figures, something propagated by patriarchy, and not solely women’s expectations forcing men to be ‘manly’, nor the result of feminism.
Which would you prefer, ending VAWA or changing it to a general domestic abuse act? Women’s shelters I think should still exist, though I feel that abused men should have somewhere similar, and if you really wanted (though I don’t see them being used as much) mixed shelters.
Where are you getting the stats that men are more likely to be arrested than not if they call the police reporting abuse? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t see why that would happen, and if it does then I agree that something would need to change.
Finally, please stop being so patronising, I would have thought that it’s beneath you.
Denis -
I’ve seen this report before, and it, much like a video above, blames “women’s choices” for the difference in pay. As stated above, it is the social norm that women be the main carers of the kids, do most of the housework, and in many cases are now also expected to hold down a job too.
And so far as I can see I agree with nfvlrc.org, and again, you can see my above comment for more on that.
Joseph -
“So your position is that we all need to be equal even though your physical observations of the material world are that we are not? Maybe I’m just being obtuse (doubtful but plausible), but you sound dumb!”
Not to be offensive (though I feel I should be in response) but yes, you’re being obtuse. Equal opportunity does not mean that we physically equal. For example, women are not allowed on the front line, one of the many crap reasons given is that only 0.1% of women would pass the physical requirements. While this may be true, it’s no reason to remove the opportunity for women to be on the front line if they so choose.
“To “lump” a women with her child upon divorce. Lump?”
Yes, lump. A child is a lot of responsibility and takes up a lot of time and effort, it is not some kind of easy pay cheque.
“And feminism actively seeks to PREVENT men from getting equal custody.”
Ha! Rather making up these fantasies, how about you stick to the facts, or at the very least, listen to what an actual feminist is trying to tell you. The child should either be able to choose the parent they wish to stay with (so long as that parent is found to be able to provide sufficient support) and if the child is too young then the child should go to the parent best able to provide support (finance, health, nutrition, accommodation, etc) and the sex of the parent should not be brought into question.
“Its in the best interests of the children they say to stay with the primary care-giver”
Which would mean that if a man was a more active care giver, he would be the one to gain custody of the child, this is certainly not anti-men.
“or too many men are controlling and abusive and will use the children as a pawn.”
See I’d understand your criticism as women being petty and making things up, but then you say:
“Its women who use their children as pawns. You can believe that.”
And now the tables have turned and it is you being petty and spouting crap with no evidence to back it up.
“I’d be more fine with the primary care-giver argument if women would let men be house husbands, but most won’t even think about it.”
What!? I know of no women who refuse to let their husbands help in the house, let alone take over the household chores. I’m not saying role reversal is a good idea, rather an equalling out of the tasks (though I suppose if a man or a woman really wants to stay at home, then they should be able to by all means).
“And from what I’ve seen and heard, most single dads do a better job raising children than single moms anyways.”
I’ve looked at this before and found no evidence either way, but in fact I remember looking at a study that concluded that there was no difference.
“We could analyze that reality, but I don’t think you’re ready for that yet.”
What is with this website and being patronizing. Can we all just grow up and stop throwing these childish tantrums. If you want to ‘analyse the reality’ then by go ahead.
@ David
I have heard a lot of rhetoric from you but little substance. You basically repeat the party line. I don’t operate off of what feminists say. I base my information about them on what they do!
“Men do the more dangerous jobs, or at least dominate them? Yes, I agree, this is mainly due to women either still not being allowed to do these jobs (say fighting on the front line) or only allowed recently. Many of these jobs, being so male dominated, I’m sure are a daunting field to enter. I have a female friend (not a feminist I might add) who is doing engineering at university, unsurprisingly, she is the only woman there. She is not one to moan or complain, but she has mentioned that she gets treated like crap by the guys there (and no, I’m not trying to paint all men, or even male engineers, with the same brush).”
David, I seriously suggest you read the book “The Myth of Male Power” and get your facts straight before you post again. You sound like an ass at this point.
Joseph -
How about you stop with the childish name calling and you stick to actually making points when you post?
What do you disagree with from my posts?
@ David
It’s not name calling. I simply don’t have room on a post to deal with the numerous discrepancies you have produced. As I said, read the book. It will show you numbers that correlate in the opposite direction from many of the points you have made above. You want substance, there are countless posts over at the-spearhead that deal with everything you have brought up. Go over there and read.
As for making fun of you, you are white-knighting. We hear all the time about the troubles of women. The men here are sick of it. We want them to do exactly what we do. I am a programmer and a volunteer fire fighter 2 weekends a month. I only work in one of the 25 most dangerous fields. Women don’t avoid them because of discrimination, they avoid them to avoid injury. Again, go read “The Myth of Male Power”, and enjoy the section on numerous women getting pregnant to avoid combat duty and then aborting the babies. Women don’t think like you and I. They don’t place the same level of value on the same things we do. This doesn’t mean they are all 3 headed hydra’s, it’s just a statement of fact. Again read the book and find out the truth. Until you do that, you honestly haven’t put forth many intelligent points.
Example:
“’Its women who use their children as pawns. You can believe that.’
And now the tables have turned and it is you being petty and spouting crap with no evidence to back it up.”
My mom runs several day care centers in my home town. I have WITNESSED this behavior on numerous occasions. 8 that I recall with clarity and one that was fairly dubious. In every one of these cases, the wife was filing for divorce and refused to allow the father pick up rights. She would call in and specifically state no one on the fathers side of the family was to be allow contact. Only one of these guys was a dead-beat dad. The rest of the kids were being forced apart from their fathers because their mother held a grudge. This is real world stuff. You may not like people generalizing, but it fits the mold. That is one example out of several I could make.
“What!? I know of no women who refuse to let their husbands help in the house, let alone take over the household chores. I’m not saying role reversal is a good idea, rather an equalling out of the tasks (though I suppose if a man or a woman really wants to stay at home, then they should be able to by all means).”
This statement is ridiculous. Men are EXPECTED to work. The only sex allowed to have a choice in the matter are women. The reason is women don’t want to support stay at home dads. Don’t believe me? You become one and see how long your marriage lasts. It won’t go as long as you’d like.
Also, your not advocating role reversal? What about women in the military? Traditional women’s roles don’t allow them into the military. Also, an equaling out of the tasks sounds great. She should cut the grass, change the oil, fix the leaking roof, repair the plumbing, change the brake pads, and I’ll go inside and gladly do the dishes and laundry.
How about this gem:
“For example, women are not allowed on the front line, one of the many crap reasons given is that only 0.1% of women would pass the physical requirements. While this may be true, it’s no reason to remove the opportunity for women to be on the front line if they so choose.”
So you’re saying that we should place women on the front lines who can’t drag men off the battlefield if their fellow soldiers are injured? That’s what the physical requirements are for! To make sure you can carry your shit and your buddy if he’s bleeding out. They can’t hack it, they can’t go! That’s my stance on it and should be yours.
I’m reading all this with great interest.
@David. I’m afraid you were probably doomed on this site from the moment you called yourself a male F-word but hang in there. I think you make some excellent points.
@ Peggy
Seriously!?! David doesn’t have a damn clue. He’s living in an idealized play house. The real world is drastically different from what he states. I know you want to find a more useful middle, but it just isn’t going to happen.
I think one of the stereotypes being perpetuated here is that parenting is a difficult job for mothers. Maybe, but not definitely…it’s a matter of personal choice. Any parent can decide for themselves what level of involvement and difficulty they choose. They can choose to be a fully involved parent or simply negligent.
The problem is that there is no incentive for women to get a job, when it is far better optino to stay at home and be your own boss. They can choose to do as much or as little housework and parenting as they like. Whereas, a father who works 40 hours a week and then spends all his extra time as a fully involved parent is given no consideration by the courts for his efforts at parenting and is reduced to 4 days a month + 12 hours. A mother who refuses to work and lives the good life of staying at home is automatically assumed to be 100% dedicated to the children, when in reality she may be spending most of her time reading novels and watching tv. I know many examples of this. There are no standards for the best interests of children, only false presumptions about gender roles. A fully involved father is easily forced out of children’s lives at the request of a vindictive mother who’s only interest is money, avoiding work and minimal parenting.
Although both parents are supposed to be responsible for supporting children, a custodial mother is never forced to go to work or put in jail for her lack of financial responsibility. This may not be a popular term among women and chauvinists, but they are deadbeats.
On the topic of “power”, Grant Brown wrote an interesting essay on the “lesser interest principle” The “lesser interest principle” states that the person who has the lesser interest in maintaining a relationship sets its terms. The reason is simple: any possible fissures in the relationship will be perceived as more threatening by the party with the greater interest in the relationship. Within the current legal framework, where men have everything to lose, women have all the power.
In regards to women in the military, the best solution is to have 100% female platoons fighting on the front lines.
David wrote: “Where are you getting the stats that men are more likely to be arrested than not if they call the police reporting abuse?”
…
“Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. ).”
…
“Stets and Straus reported men calling police for less than 1% of assaults initiated by their partner. The reason for this is obvious. Men are rarely taken seriously by the police and charges are rarely laid (Brown, 2004; Buzawa, Austin, Bannon, & Jackson, 1992). Brown found only moderate increases in police arrest of women, even when the man was injured. Buzawa et al. cite a case in Detroit where the police refused to arrest the woman despite the man’s being stabbed in the back”
…
Brown (2004) found huge discrepancies in arrest and prosecution of spousal assault as a function of gender. Women were four times more likely to report partner violence to police (81% vs. 19%).(Stets & Straus (1992a) found women were 10 times more likely to call police in response to partner assault. Brown also found women were more likely to have the police arrest when reporting (75% vs. 60%) than were men reporting an assault by a woman. The higher arrest of men occurs despite injuries to male victims. When men are injured, female perpetrators are arrested only 60.2% of the time, compared to 91.1% of cases involving in the reverse situation (Brown, 2004, p. 34). A combination of men’s’ unwillingness to report and the police being unwilling to arrest female perpetrators means only 2% of female perpetrators are arrested (Brown, 2004; Statistics Canada, 2003, p.4). When no one was injured, men were 16 times more likely to be charged than women (Brown, 2004, p. 35);
…
I do have more sources on gender profiling / police discrimination, but mandatory arrest combined with dominant aggressor policies mean that when in doubt, the man gets arrested.
.
If you want stats on types of violence perpetuated by men and women (not just slaps, but weapons!), check out :
http://www.maennerbuero-trier.de/Archer_2002.pdf
Definitely VAWA has to go, there is absolutely no good reason for any type of single sex domestic violence shelter. The common excuse given is that women are the victims of men, but that is both false and misandrist. They are the victims of a single person and not men in general, they do not need to be protected from all men.
In my own experience dealing with victims, both male and female victims of domestic violence can find solidarity in their common experiences and move beyond the fear of the opposite sex (taught by women’s shelters) and towards a better understanding of healthy relationships.
I think one of the inaccuracies being perpetuated here is that in most families with married couples, only the man works.
Look at the data.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/families_households/cb10-08.html
From that article:
“The percentage of married couples with children under 18 with both parents employed dropped from 63 percent in 2007 to 59 percent in 2009. A higher percentage of married couples with children under 18 had only the wife employed in 2009 (7 percent) than in 2007 (5 percent).”
If you look at the data tables (link on the right side of the above page) you can see more details. Yes, there are more families in which only the husband works than there are in which only the wife works, but the largest category in this US census data is married couples with BOTH working.
@ Peggy
I don’t really hear that. You have to realize most of the guys who come here took there role as providers seriously. The duly “manned up” and did what needed to be done. Most of us realize that it isn’t that way for every home. We also realize that women are becoming increasingly discontent with the roles they were told they wanted.
My position is that women don’t want the kind of responsibility that they claim they do. They don’t want to be eligible for the draft. They don’t want to be placed in front line combat positions. They don’t want government issued quotas for certain numbers of women in coal mines. They don’t want to take care of the stay at home husband. Contrary to what politicians and activist groups say, women (in general) really need to be at home taking care of the kids. They think they want all these other things, but it ends up making them non marriage material, unlivable, infertile (by the time they get their heads straight), unable to comprehend giving love as opposed to “finding that special someone”. You want to know where the greatest abuse of women is? How government and industry and academia have told them all the things they want instead of letting them decide for themselves. It’s not how they are smacked around at home, some of those women deserved it. It’s not how men keep them down. It’s how they are told what to want. Many of them attain the things that they have been told and find that no one can deal with them other than women like themselves. It’s sad really.
Joseph,
Putting women on pedestal and allowing them the luxury of staying home and having full control of the children is exactly the attitude that perpetuates the discrimination against fathers. I can see how it was a necessary partnership 100 years ago when women’s work was actually hard work. However, with all of the modern conveniences, there is no excuse for women to avoid real paid work.
Otherwise, yes, women have been lied to, so have men. But that’s the predicament we are stuck with and there is no turning back.
@ Denis
I understand your point and agree with it. I am just stating things from the perspective of my (slowly growing in number thanks to paul) female friends when they peak to me. You can tell they think something is missing, but the obvious eludes them. I watch with a kind of passive horror/amusement as their drama reels out of control and just feel sorry for what they are becoming. They are doing it to themselves and I’m not stopping them, but I still feel that human nudge of compassion pick up when I see how self-destructive it is.
@Denis. I bet you don’t have kids, do you? There is no “modern convenience” that can replace a parent. I think the ideal thing for kids would be to have two parents who each work part time, so that the kids have the benefit of one parent at all times, and both as much as possible. Raising kids is not a “luxury” of “full control.” It is hard work, important work, and best done by parents, not daycare centers. It certainly can’t be compared to running a vacuum or a dishwasher.
@ Peggy
Or have the family all work at home or near home so that the parents are around constantly. Agricultural setting anyone?
I understand Joseph, I see it myself and I don’t entirely disagree with you. Women do realize that times have changed, they have more responsibilities and they are far more stressed out and unhappy. Women bemoan the loss of chivalry. The inability to find decent men willing to marry them and share their burden is even more frustrating. The destruction of families as the foundation of society is troubling.
Yet, we didn’t start this gender war and we are not responsible for its consequences. Things will only get worse for women as more men become aware.
@ Denis
Conceded
Peggy,
Parenting is entirely what you decide to put into it. The bare minimum is food and shelter, which doesn’t take much effort.
My grandparents had families of 10 and 12 kids with none of the modern conveniences. All food was home made, laundry hand washed, etc, etc. For some reason, most of those kids turned out much better than todays children and it wasn’t because they had a doting mother always available for them, she was busy! More likely, it was because they had strong stable families, which is not very common these days. Yes, I have young children, so I’m not easily fooled by women’s exaggeration of the burdens of motherhood.
A modern parent with average of 2.3 kids and all the modern conveniences should have plenty of free time to get a job!
It’s not very common that two parents can work part time, many parents both have to work full time just to pay the bills. It’s a nice fantasy, but not very realistic.
“many parents both have to work full time just to pay the bills.”
Exactly my point from my post about the census. All the complaining I hear on this site about women staying home, and the truth is most wife/mothers DO work.
Joseph -
“We hear all the time about the troubles of women. The men here are sick of it.”
I’ve talked about problems men face as well, my fight is not against men (something that would be a bit self-defeating) but rather patriarchy. It is patriarchy that propagates the ideas that women are meant to look after children, leading to women being expected to stay at home and earning less, and men having less of a chance to win a custody case; it is patriarchy that propagates that men should be strong, aggressive authority figures, leading to men missing out on some parts of childcare and being suspected in domestic violence cases.
“We want them to do exactly what we do.”
That view seems to vary across MRA, from wanting equality (like yourself) to wanting the apparently ‘golden era’ of the 50s to come back.
“Women don’t avoid them because of discrimination, they avoid them to avoid injury.”
Talk about your sweeping statements, that’s just absurd. Plenty of women apply or would apply to these jobs. I, unfortunately, have female friends looking at joining the armed forces (though I think only one or two are seriously considering it). I have no idea where you’re getting this idea that women are especially against the idea of getting harmed, I would have thought that was fairly widespread across all animals, many men don’t want to put themselves in harms way. However, if you think that women are unique in this trait, please, provide evidence of your claim.
“Again, go read “The Myth of Male Power”, and enjoy the section on numerous women getting pregnant to avoid combat duty and then aborting the babies.”
How about you supply me evidence of this? Then I’ll supply you evidence of men shooting themselves in the foot to get out of military service, then we’ll see we go from there.
“Women don’t think like you and I. They don’t place the same level of value on the same things we do.”
??? Oh my… I would have thought we’d be beyond ‘women are a different species’ arguments, but apparently not. I’ll give you some credit though, this is true to a degree, but the differences between individual thought is far greater than the general difference between men and women.
“My mom runs several day care centers in my home town. I have WITNESSED this behavior on numerous occasions. 8 that I recall with clarity and one that was fairly dubious. In every one of these cases, the wife was filing for divorce and refused to allow the father pick up rights. She would call in and specifically state no one on the fathers side of the family was to be allow contact. Only one of these guys was a dead-beat dad. The rest of the kids were being forced apart from their fathers because their mother held a grudge.”
Tell me, of these 9 families, how many did you know in any depth? Did you spend enough time with them to know whether or not the father was beating or otherwise abusing the woman or children, or rather that the woman was delusional and had imagined it all? I’m guessing so as you seem to have insight into the women’s thoughts to know that they were doing this to enact revenge on the men.
Also, 9 women, out of all the divorce cases is statistically nothing, so even if this were true, it is meaningless, get me a wider study that shows women to be so manipulative and that uses children as pawns and sources of income.
“Men are EXPECTED to work. The only sex allowed to have a choice in the matter are women.”
Men are expected to work, and guess why, patriarchy! The focus of all feminist attacks and criticism.
“The reason is women don’t want to support stay at home dads.”
Evidence please.
“Don’t believe me? You become one and see how long your marriage lasts. It won’t go as long as you’d like.”
My uncle has recently become a stay at home dad (the joys of the economic crash), and guess what, marriage is still going strong. There are plenty of stay at home dads and husbands, however, this seems to be looked down upon and more so expected of women. This is not forced by women alone, but rather propagated by patriarchy.
“Also, your not advocating role reversal? What about women in the military? Traditional women’s roles don’t allow them into the military.”
Role reversal would be 90% of the military being female, what I’m saying is that women should be allowed to do the jobs they want, even the military.
“Also, an equaling out of the tasks sounds great. She should cut the grass, change the oil, fix the leaking roof, repair the plumbing, change the brake pads, and I’ll go inside and gladly do the dishes and laundry.”
Again, got female mates who do this (maybe not the plumbing, not sure), and I wouldn’t have a clue. But yea, I have no problem with women doing these things, and I do indeed criticise women who object to doing these things on the grounds of them being ‘manly jobs’. My parents both do gardening, cooking, cleaning (though each of them knows how to do some things better than others) but generally tasks are not dealt out by gender (the only thing I can think of is that Mum knows how to sew, Dad doesn’t).
““For example, women are not allowed on the front line, one of the many crap reasons given is that only 0.1% of women would pass the physical requirements. While this may be true, it’s no reason to remove the opportunity for women to be on the front line if they so choose.”
So you’re saying that we should place women on the front lines who can’t drag men off the battlefield if their fellow soldiers are injured? That’s what the physical requirements are for! To make sure you can carry your shit and your buddy if he’s bleeding out. They can’t hack it, they can’t go!”
I could have made this clearer, I apologise for confusing you. Currently no women in the British (and I believe American) army are allowed on the front line. One of the reasons given is that only a very few would pass the physical requirements. My argument was that these very few that can pass the physical requirements should still be allowed on the front lines. The opportunity I was talking about was the opportunity to pass the physical tests, as currently they’re just refused on the basis of being female.
Denis -
I agree with some of what you’ve written about assumed gender roles, and the disadvantages men face because of them. However, I would say that these problems originate not from women, nor feminism, but rather wider society and the patriarchy that is rampant within it. It is thanks to patriarchy that men are assumed to be the main bread winners and women the main child care givers. I don’t see why this can be the other way round or more balanced. It is thanks to patriarchy that men are assumed to be dominant, aggressive authority figures, while women are emotional, irrational and affectionate; meaning that men miss out of parts of childcare, or are disadvantaged in custody cases, and why women are disadvantaged when it comes to getting a job or being expected to look after the kids.
Denis -
Unfortunately I’m short for time so I’m going to take these statistics as they are presented, however, given more time and actual references, I would have liked to examine these studies further.
“Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. ).”
This leads not only to the conclusion that your wanting (men are discriminated against) but also that men are found to be responsible after investigation. This statistic does not reveal in how many cases both men and women are arrested.
…
“Stets and Straus reported men calling police for less than 1% of assaults initiated by their partner. The reason for this is obvious. Men are rarely taken seriously by the police and charges are rarely laid (Brown, 2004; Buzawa, Austin, Bannon, & Jackson, 1992). Brown found only moderate increases in police arrest of women, even when the man was injured. Buzawa et al. cite a case in Detroit where the police refused to arrest the woman despite the man’s being stabbed in the back”
A strange assumption for the first part, I doubt many people have read the wider statistics and studies to come to the conclusion that men are apparently ‘men are rarely taken seriously’. Where this true, it would be evident in police reviews, say with these 1% of calls resulting in significantly less arrests. Rather I would come to the conclusion that 1% of DV calls being from meaning that this statistic was representative (though certainly not accurately – I’m not saying that 1% of DV is initiated by women) of the amount of DV being initiated by women on their male partners.
I’m not sure about the Buzawa et al case, but if true, then yes, I obviously am opposed to that kind of discrimination.
…
“When men are injured, female perpetrators are arrested only 60.2% of the time, compared to 91.1% of cases involving in the reverse situation (Brown, 2004, p. 34).”
No reference to whether both partners where injured, nor who was injured worse.
“A combination of men’s’ unwillingness to report and the police being unwilling to arrest female perpetrators means only 2% of female perpetrators are arrested (Brown, 2004; Statistics Canada, 2003, p.4). When no one was injured, men were 16 times more likely to be charged than women (Brown, 2004, p. 35);”
I’m guessing by ‘female perpetrators’ it is meant that a woman who has assaulted a male, making no mention if this was in self-defence, nor whether the woman was injured to a greater extent, and in this case, whether the man initiated the violence. Also, women have many a reason not report violence, men are not alone in this case. And in the final example, I have no idea why anyone is being arrested when no one was injured, perhaps this may be due to threat of violence, but without further information, I have no way of judging this.
…
“If you want stats on types of violence perpetuated by men and women (not just slaps, but weapons!), check out :
http://www.maennerbuero-trier.de/Archer_2002.pdf”
You’ll note that women are recorded as higher in ‘throw something at, kick, bite, hit, etc” all of which could be a single instance, whereas men are higher in ‘beat up, strangle, choke, etc’ which show a more constant intent for harm. You can hit someone and then stop, but to beat someone up or to strangle someone is continued act.
“Definitely VAWA has to go, there is absolutely no good reason for any type of single sex domestic violence shelter. The common excuse given is that women are the victims of men, but that is both false and misandrist. They are the victims of a single person and not men in general, they do not need to be protected from all men.”
I never said anything like this, but rather that if a woman has been beaten or raped by a man, they may not want to be living with men, just like is a man is beaten or raped by women, they may not want to be live with women. And upon writing this I have changed my mind on the mixed shelters, as men or women who’ve been raped by someone of the same sex may be better off in a mixed sex environment.
“In my own experience dealing with victims, both male and female victims of domestic violence can find solidarity in their common experiences and move beyond the fear of the opposite sex (taught by women’s shelters) and towards a better understanding of healthy relationships.”
Hatred of the other sex is not taught in shelters (provide evidence if you disagree), rather fostered in one’s own mind (I have a friend who was raped by a black buy and she’s now a racist). I agree that if a shelter was to be found fostering such ideas that something should be done to change this, but to introduce people of the sex that abused these men or women just seems like a terrible idea to me.
Erm, did you ACTUALLY read the article above, instead of waffling off on a tangent ? Men are sick of women’s excuses for their BAD behaviour, SICK, things are changing, feminists started this hate , now you are going to reap what you sowed
Ian -
I did read it, and I’ve not gone off any tangent, I pointed out my objections, that women are more likely to commit single instance attacks; to throw something, hit, bite or kick. Men on the other hand are more likely to commit prolonged attacks; beat up, strangle or choke.
Something I did not pick up on last time, but I’ll include now, is that Denis did say that women were more likely to use weapons. Now I’m guessing that he was referring to ‘throwing things’ but there is a section for using weapons such as knives or guns, and there is not a statistically significant difference in direction of either sex.
Now, I’ve provided my criticisms, and I welcome responses from anyone, however, to use your word, please do not ‘waffle’, rather actually tell me why you think I’m wrong.
@ Peggy Spencer
“I’m reading all this with great interest.
@David. I’m afraid you were probably doomed on this site from the moment you called yourself a male F-word but hang in there. I think you make some excellent points.”
This is pure instigation.
I have a suggestion for you Peggy. Why don’t you try visiting one of the major “F-word” sites and paste a reasoned pro-male comment from one of the threads here and see what happens?
Or better yet, rather than goad David into more intense arguing, if you think his points are excellent, then by all means, put your own arguments out there to support him.
Acting as a non contributing cheerleader in this particular discussion is the type of thing that starts flame wars. Really bad form.
What I see so far here, and I am about to answer David myself, is a terse but civil and reasoned difference between two men.
I’d like to do all I can to keep it that way.
@ David
It is a given that men are more physically capable of violence and most studies I have read support the idea that more injurious harm come to women at the hands of men than vice versa. Of course, much of that violence is in self defense as well.
But you are missing a central point here that for whatever reason (my guess is misandry) is escaping your attention. The numbers of men injured by intimate partners exceeds 835,000 annually in the US alone. The incidence of violence in intimate relationships is significant enough on both sides of the fence to warrant a great deal of attention.
Your cherry picking facts like ‘women are more seriously harmed’ and relying on them to maintain the status quo, which is to ignore male victimization and female perpetration, is just more of the problem.
You are walking through a field of shit and nit picking about what turd you want to step on.
If you are not aware of the corruption, misandry and political nature of women’s shelters I suggest you read any number of the ABUSEGATE articles over on MND.
http://abusegate.mensnewsdaily.com/
But I doubt it will help. If you can look at the research and make an argument that we should pay more attention to the ill actions of men than women, then your problem will not be solved with information or facts.
It is something more personal than that.
“I think one of the inaccuracies being perpetuated here is that in most families with married couples, only the man works.”
Not from me, and not that I think is going on here from anyone else. My objection to the status quo is that women still have the option of not working socially accepted, while men don’t. And even the numbers you posted bear that out. Unless of course you are making the point that women routinely choose to work outside the home when they don’t have to?
The other factor is the relative cost of the employment, again with the same set of social expectations at play.
Sure women work, but at what? What is the comparison of a man who works on an oil rig thirty miles out to sea who is married to a woman who works in an office or convenience store for supplemental income back on dry land where things don’t blow up quite so often?
The fact that there is a lot of working married women is an economic statement, not a social one. Women by and large expect men to bear the financial weight of the relationship, whether that is to be the sole breadwinner, or the primary breadwinner at the expense of his body and well being.
And of course, men largely still buy into that model. But that is finally beginning to change.
Welcome to A Voice for Men!
“It is a given that men are more physically capable of violence and most studies I have read support the idea that more injurious harm come to women at the hands of men than vice versa. Of course, much of that violence is in self defense as well.”
Can you please supply evidence for you last sentence? It just confuses me why, to use the examples above, a man would need to ‘beat up, choke or strangle’ a woman in self defence, and not just push them away or restrain them (as you agreed, men are usually physically dominant) or even just hit them once.
“But you are missing a central point here that for whatever reason (my guess is misandry)”
This comment again. I am not a self-hating man, my issue is with patriarchy which is propagated by men and women. However, if you insist on calling me a misandrist, then let me borrow, in part, from your youtube page:
Misandrist: A person who thinks men are rational, intelligent, mature human beings and expects them to act that way.
“The numbers of men injured by intimate partners exceeds 835,000 annually in the US alone. The incidence of violence in intimate relationships is significant enough on both sides of the fence to warrant a great deal of attention.”
I agree with you, and as you can see in my comments above, I have said that DV laws such as VAWA should be done away with and equal rights DV laws should be put in place, I am well aware that many men are the victims of DV.
My point throughout these posts has not been that ‘women have it worse’, but rather that in both cases, be it DV, jobs, pay, divorce, housework, childcare, etc.; it is patriarchy that is to blame, not feminism, nor women.
“Your cherry picking facts like ‘women are more seriously harmed’ and relying on them to maintain the status quo, which is to ignore male victimization and female perpetration, is just more of the problem.”
I’m pretty sure I’ve never said that, and again, I acknowledge that men are beaten and abused by their wives, my problem is with your assignment of the blame, and other people trying to say that men actually have it worse (again, I’m not trying to say that the majority of abuse is one way or the other, but that both should be stopped).
“If you are not aware of the corruption, misandry and political nature of women’s shelters I suggest you read any number of the ABUSEGATE articles over on MND.
http://abusegate.mensnewsdaily.com/”
First, I’m not surprised that women who’re raped by men become misandrist, a friend of mine was raped by a black guy and is now very racist, but I don’t see evidence for the whole institution of women’s shelters being so corrupt.
Please, if you wish to send me links, by all means, but not from a MRA website, the last one I was on in relation to shelters gave me this:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/women_shelter1.htm#Heikamp
Seems like a terrible story, right? Yea, till you actually google this poor boy’s name and find out that he was allowed into the shelter, both were, but it was the complete neglect of the mother and the incompetence of the social worker that lead to the boy’s death.
I’m not trying to paint all MRA sites like this, however, I’d prefer independent links, much like you probably wouldn’t appreciate being sent feminist links. Just to clarify, I’m not refusing to look at what you’re sending me, rather I’d prefer you send me impartial specifics rather than a whole section of a MRA website.
“Can you please supply evidence for you last sentence?”
I already did in the video I posted.
“I am not a self-hating man”
That is not what misandry means. It means your actions and thoughts are biased against men, and they clearly are.
“It just confuses me why, to use the examples above, a man would need to ‘beat up, choke or strangle’ a woman in self defence, and not just push them away or restrain them (as you agreed, men are usually physically dominant) or even just hit them once.”
First, you have no evidence at all to prove that just one hit is not the majority of reactions. But the point you are making here is that women should not have to maintain control over their own violence or be held accountable for it physically with an act of self defense. You further assert it is up to me to remain under control when they are being attacked. Sorry, but that is a major piece of bullshit in the real world. If women don’t want violent reactions from men, the answer is to not attack first.
What part of that escapes you?
“I’d prefer you send me impartial specifics rather than a whole section of a MRA website.”
It is not my job to educate you out of your misandry or your ignorance. If I took that on with every feminist I met, that would be all I did.
You are barking up the wrong tree here. All your conclusions emanate from a purely feminist/misandric POV.
If you want to understand the bigger picture than your PC feminist nonsense, go back to the link I sent you and do your own homework, go read Myth of Male Power and The Woman Racket.
But don’t expect me or anyone else to go line by line with you on stuff that has been debunked since way before your 21 years.
“I already did in the video I posted.”
I’ve responded to this in earlier comments (which have not been replied to). You can reply to this or provide new evidence (or both).
“That is not what misandry means. It means your actions and thoughts are biased against men, and they clearly are.”
I see, so you get to redefine misogyny, and misandry, but not in the same way? How about we rely on an independent source, wikipedia:
“Misandry is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. Misandry comes from Greek misos (μῖσος, “hatred”) and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, gen. ἀνδρός; “man”). It is parallel to misogyny, the hatred of women or girls…”
“First, you have no evidence at all to prove that just one hit is not the majority of reactions.”
I never said anything to the contrary, but the evidence provided thus far does show that men are more likely to ‘beat up, choke or strangle’, than women.
“But the point you are making here is that women should not have to maintain control over their own violence or be held accountable for it physically with an act of self defense.”
I’m guessing you’ve heard of ‘strawman arguments’ then? I never said this, nor ever hinted to anything like it. Women should be held accountable for their actions, and if they hit a man I believe that a man can hit back with reasonable force. If the woman is of an equal build then equal force as applied can be returned, if however, there is a difference in physical strength, then this should be taken into account, so a stronger man should not hit the woman as hard as he was hit, nor should a stronger woman hit back harder than she was hit. If it is necessary to restrain the person then arms and legs should be pinned, or the person should be pushed away. Choking, or prolonged beating is not necessary from either sex, to either sex.
“You further assert it is up to me to remain under control when they are being attacked. Sorry, but that is a major piece of bullshit in the real world. If women don’t want violent reactions from men, the answer is to not attack first.
What part of that escapes you?”
Again, I’ve said that responding with reasonable force is fine, and if the person will not calm down (male or female) then restraint or further force may be necessary. I don’t believe that if a woman slaps a man or throws things at him, that he must then beat her into the hospital ward, nor do I think that if a man hits a man, this allows her to hit him in the back of the head with a shovel.
“It is not my job to educate you out of your misandry or your ignorance. If I took that on with every feminist I met, that would be all I did.”
I’m not asking you to do this with everyone, nor am I asking you to find me reams of information, rather I’m asking for a few sources supporting your assertion of corrupt women’s shelters. Seeing as they’re supposedly so corrupt, and you understand this well, a few sources shouldn’t be too hard.
“All your conclusions emanate from a purely feminist/misandric POV.”
Sorry, have we met? I don’t think we have, I only ask because for someone who knows next to nothing about me, you seem to have me all figured out. How about we stick to the content of our arguments, and less of the unfounded assertions about each other.
Ok, David, your response took a while so I didn’t see it. And it wasn’t really a response in the strictest of terms, and really revealing of your unfortunate deficit of understanding. I am not going in to any point by point over all your contentions. That is simply because you are making points that are circumventing the information you have already been given. I am not here to waste my time on that sort of thing.
I will give you one example of what I am talking about, though. You said “Yes, I agree, this is mainly due to women either still not being allowed to do these jobs (say fighting on the front line) or only allowed recently.”
This is strait out of any feminist drivel filled website. Wake up, David, women have been allowed into any position they qualify for in civilian life for nearly fifty years and sue all hell out of anyone who turns them down, even when they are not qualified. They CHOOSE not to go after those jobs. Your painting them as victims is pure ignorance of the facts.
There are over 1,000,000 volunteer fire fighters in America. Less than 1% of them are women. And don’t start in with how they aren’t allowed to or so help me I will move all your posts to mangina central. They do not volunteer to put themselves in harms way, and they avoid, as an entire class of human beings, work that is risky and overly physical.
A half century after the advent of gender feminism we still have the fact that 93% of workplace deaths are male. You are seriously deluded if you think this is a product of discrimination against women.
All your other points can be similarly destroyed. I am not taking the time to do it because I got tired of arguing on this reduced level about the time you were shitting yellow. And yes, I am targeting your age here. It is clear you are a highly opinionated (good) but impressionable (bad) young man, that has not learned near as much as you are capable of, and has swallowed a lot of bullshit hook line and sinker.
No go learn, kiddo, you have a long, long way to go.
How about you stop being so fucking condescending and actually respond to what I’ve put forward you patronising little man. My youth has no reflection on my intelligence, and clearly your senior years has no reflection on yours. I have taken the time and effort to respond to the crap you have sent my way and you’ve avoided it, not because of any lack in content, but, I suspect, because you have no response, at least not one that would be both truthful and rebut my claims.
I want two things from you, that is all (and neither is an apology for the shit you have projected towards me thus far).
1) respond to what I have given you so far. I am more than willing to read your response and any related materials, as well as respond in kind, rationally and logically. What I am not willing to do is to put up with is you spouting off that you know oh so much more because of your age, or because I’m deluded into hating my own sex. Again, please stick to the content of the arguments.
2) tell me, as I stated before, are women allowed on the front lines, yes or no?
Also, it’s no wonder that only 1% of American volunteer firefighters are women, have you seen the physical requirements? Although it is possible for women to pass it, not many can. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the requirements should be lower for women, or indeed lowered at all, but this crap of “women don’t want to get hurt” is idiotic. First, no one wants to get hurt, it’s not gender specific; and second, far less women can lift a 185 pound mannequin than men, nor control a fire hose. Many men couldn’t do this either, which is probably why only 990,000 out of 150,000,000 volunteer for the fire service. Or are the rest just ‘manginas’?
“”but this crap of “women don’t want to get hurt” is idiotic. First, no one wants to get hurt, it’s not gender specific”"”
Nobody said that men “want to get hurt”…
The statement was more in terms of men are more WILLING to risk getting hurt, than women are.
“”First, no one wants to get hurt, it’s not gender specific; and second, far less women can lift a 185 pound mannequin than men, nor control a fire hose.”"
You don’t get it. Its not about risk taking or taking pain, its about sacrifice vs. earning.
Read Warren Farrel’s “why men earn more and you will learn that
1) The highest paid jobs either require sacrifice or risk-taking
2) Women are proven to be more oriented toward balance than making money
It doesn’t have to do with the actual sacrifice or risk-taking. The reason women earn less is that they’d prefer to keep their best friend and be close to family, then move to another city just to earn a bit more.
Most of of the workaholics are men. Virtually all state relocations are men (women refuse these offers even though they offer going up the ladder and higher salary)… etc… etc.
The “take more risk” and “take more pain” subjects might be more debatable, and take more time to sort out. But that women prefer balance over profit is proven beyond the shadow of doubt. Women simply prefer balanced lives. Men prefer extremes.
Actually it does. When I was in my early 20s I was as naive and stupid as you, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul was too at that age. Real-world-intelligence comes from experience and exposure. When you’re young you think you know everything, and you believe everything the mainstream media (feminist zeitgeist) serves you. The worst part, is despite being brainwashed, you think you’re “in the know” and them old folks don’t get it. What you don’t know is them old-folks were just like you at your age, and had the exact same sentiments, beliefs and “knowledge”. It takes time to mature and overthrow bullshit.
To quote Winston Churchill “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
He was just rephrasing a former french socialist though…
“If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is
not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head” — Georges
Clemenceau, Former French Prime Minister and one-time radical
“”But that women prefer balance over profit is proven beyond the shadow of doubt. Women simply prefer balanced lives. Men prefer extremes.”"
In essence…
- Women will sacrifice profit and status for balance and safety
- Men will sacrifice safety and balance for profit and status
“The statement was more in terms of men are more WILLING to risk getting hurt, than women are…You don’t get it. Its not about risk taking or taking pain, its about sacrifice vs. earning.”
Well again, far less women will be physically capable of doing these jobs which could account for the lower percentages and it’s not as if no women are doing these jobs. I agree that to some extent, women’s socialisation can stop them from entering these jobs, but this is most certainly not the fault of feminism, but, once again, patriarchy.
“The highest paid jobs either require sacrifice or risk-taking”
Soldiers are actually paid relatively little, whereas CEOs are paid millions.
“Women are proven to be more oriented toward balance than making money”
Balance? What does that mean exactly? And there are plenty of capitalist women. And where are you getting this idea from?
“The reason women earn less is that they’d prefer to keep their best friend and be close to family, then move to another city just to earn a bit more.”
Ha! Bullshit! Show me where you’re getting that from and you might get my attention, but thus far it just appears to have been pulled out of your imagination.
“Most of of the workaholics are men.”
Stats please.
“Virtually all state relocations are men (women refuse these offers even though they offer going up the ladder and higher salary)… etc… etc.”
Stats please.
“Women simply prefer balanced lives. Men prefer extremes.”
A link to a study perhaps?
“Actually it does. When I was in my early 20s I was as naive and stupid as you, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul was too at that age. Real-world-intelligence comes from experience and exposure.”
Alek, please, speak for yourself. If you want to take issue with my arguments, do so, but don’t resort to name calling, I would have thought it beneath you, no? I’ve met plenty of smart and idiotic 20 year olds, and plenty of smart and idiotic people 2 or 3 times their age. It’s about what you do with the time, not just having more of it.
“When you’re young you think you know everything, and you believe everything the mainstream media (feminist zeitgeist) serves you.”
Mainstream media = feminist …rrright, and I suppose it’s left wing too? Who knew that the few multi-billionaire men that own the media were socialist feminists…
And I’ve never said I know it all, please don’t put words into my mouth, seems to be popular here, but really, don’t follow the trend.
“The worst part, is despite being brainwashed, you think you’re “in the know” and them old folks don’t get it.”
Again? Have I ever even hinted to anything like this? No. I’ve agreed with people here on some things, disagreed on others, within feminist circles, it’s the same (including with older members). Rather it appears to be that you, with your senior years, believe that being older than me makes you right.
“And there are plenty of capitalist women. And where are you getting this idea from?”
You’ve already shown this tendency twice. Paul gives you a source, then makes claims, and then you ask “what’s your source”. I ALREADY TOLD YOU. READ THE DARN BOOK.
Why are you still arguing, based on no-research?
“Soldiers are actually paid relatively little, whereas CEOs are paid millions.”
What kind of a dumbass argument is that? I never said risk is directly quantifiable and direct correlation. If that were the case, daredevils would be the richest people on the planet.
Its between two OTHERWISE IDENTICAL professions, that the riskier/more boring/more sacrifice-riden one is paid better. Do you get it now? Its how the free market works. Its the way we incentivize people to do things they would otherwise not do.
A soldier makes more than someone who does otherwise (physically) similar job, but with less risk of death.
The CEO has sacrificed balance to get there. He has probably invested 20 years of having no close relationships, 20 years of 18 hour workdays etc… Women just simply don’t make those sacrifices.
AGAIN: Read some of the books, read some of the research, do some studying, then come back here to argue. Right now you’re arguing based on what? The ether?
“Mainstream media = feminist …rrright, and I suppose it’s left wing too? Who knew that the few multi-billionaire men that own the media were socialist feminists…”
Actually, soros does a good job of controlling most of the world’s media, and he is one of the biggest sponsors of feminist causes. The other thing is that the ones who aren’t feminists only care about profit, and being pro-feminist is very profitable.
Study marketing and you will find that all major marketing-firms proactively cater to females as females make 2/3 of the purchasing decisions. Over the past decades the media has learned that the more you play the female victim card, and appeal to female-as-victim card, the more money they make. Most TV producers are female, most of the middle management, etc… The actual people who DECIDE the content are female. The men at the top only care about profit, and feminism is extremely profitable.
=============
“Most of of the workaholics are men.”
Stats please.
“Virtually all state relocations are men (women refuse these offers even though they offer going up the ladder and higher salary)… etc… etc.”
Stats please.
“Women simply prefer balanced lives. Men prefer extremes.”
A link to a study perhaps?
========
Are you blind or doing it on purpose? I already gave you the exact book to refer to that has all the studies and stats. And you’re sitll here arguing. How did you jump over that? Its not your first time. You did that with Paul a few times as well.
We’ll give you the source, you’ll jump it over, and then ask for a source.
This ‘pro-male, anti-male, anti-feminist, feminist, mangina’ nonsense is ridiculous. I am not ‘pro-male’ just as I am not ‘pro-female;’ people are people regardless of gender, and making it into a war between the sexes has got us NOWHERE and never will. This demonisation of women and feminists of either gender is futile and frustrating. ‘Mangina’? Seriously? You are complaining about the emasculation and oppression of men and you are calling anyone who disagrees with you a feminazi or a mangina… of course, makes perfect sense…
Also, I and I’m sure others would view this site with a modicum of respect if the sexist comments were as harshly dealt with as the feminist ones. Someone comes along and presents a reasonably put argument and they face derision, someone comes along talking about verbally fucking feminists with a strap on and they are just fine. How delightful, doesn’t imply idle dick-swinging at all; makes you all look so serious about your cause.
And another thing, David makes a perfectly valid point about volunteer fire fighters and other dangerous professions. It has nothing to do with whether women want to ‘deal with pain or risk’. That was never even mentioned by David. What was said is that the majority of women, and in fact the majority of men, cannot physically perform the tasks needed for the job. Is every man on here a fire fighter? Infantry man? Coal miner? Should every man and woman take on these jobs? Why not? Because they are not physically capable, that is why not.
Where are you getting that feminists don’t want men in the house? Feminists want men in the house, and fight male stereotyping all the time. What stuff are you reading? Peggy, I agree with Paul, talk to some feminists and see if they want men in the house, taking an equal share with the children, see if they want to exorcise that stigma of men being less worthy for deciding to stay at home. I would say they would want those things, I certainly do.
In terms of this article, it shows a massive lack of understanding of sexual selection, evolution, social norms as well as how women and men function in society. It seems a bit of a petty point, but when was the last time you saw a chick flick were the leading man was aggressive or domineering? Look at what men look like these days, we are in the era of the metrosexual, the modern man who is in touch with his sensitive side, caring; I am afraid the dickhead has had his day. And even with the opposite, look at the most desired women, strong, intelligent and kick-arse. Everyone goes on about how terribly they are portrayed in the media, LOOK AT THE MEDIA. You can argue that men are seen as stupid, smart, strong, weak, whatever, it is practically ALL THERE. Everyone is fucked over, unreal, and everyone has a problem with that. Pointing the finger at feminism is a waste of time when you have capitalism and patriarchy, yes, PATRIARCHY, bollocksing it up for everyone. The domineering, aggressive man wins favour with other men, and makes more money too. Men and women, all perpetuating a failing system and blaming each other for it. Look at action film stars, those ‘real men.’ How you decide to act, what you decide to wear etc. is not just based on what a potential mate will find appealing, it is about your own sex as much as anything else. Rash generalisations such as those seen in this article are not only hideously simplistic but misleading and destructive.
This leads me to my next point nicely. Perhaps youth is a good thing, seeing how different generations have been raised and how this effects them and their views? Perhaps talking down to someone younger than you is as idiotic as talking down to someone older than you? It is the same with feminists, stale stereotypes and archaic arguments that ignore modern ideals and culture, we have gone past the days were John Wayne was a heartthrob, we have entered the world that praises Robert Patterson and Brad Pitt. Where exactly does masculinity lie? A feminist point of view says anywhere, but here it seems to be a very specific thing, make sure you are a ‘real man’, not one of those pussy-whipped/pussy-mad manginas. If you can’t lift a 185 pound dummy over your shoulder, you just can’t take the pain and we take your man-card.
I am disappointed by many (but crucially not all) of the views I have seen here, it shows a movement that has some good ideas but no desire for real change or discussion. It shows poorly constructed arguments and manipulation of statistics, the childish name-calling of those on the other side of the debate and arrogance only superseded by ignorance.
Paul you seem to have an odd definition of patriarchy, just as you seem to have an odd idea of misandry and misogyny. I think you could be easily guilty of both as any feminist on here apparently is. And just how would you know what made pre-historic woman, in fact any woman ‘wet and tingly’? Who knew you had such an in-depth knowledge of female sexual psychology, is that what you specialized in? I gather you were a counsellor, did that little gem of wisdom get you far? I wouldn’t presume to know what any individual was turned on by, let alone half the population of the world and base a social ideology on it.
David, I’m going to call you out on claiming women’s self-defense as an excuse for their violence. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? If you do not have any evidence to support your claim then it is sexist and mendacious.
Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stets and Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time.
Stets and Straus concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicate that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992)
The latter result is difficult to explain from a feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument that female violence is solely defensive.
A hit with the hands is a instantaneous act. A weapon is a deliberate thoughtful response requiring two separate and deliberate actions (49% of women’s acts of violence). Choking is indeterminate since it can be an instantaneous response or an extended choking (2% of men’s acts of violence).
In 94% of relationships characterized by IPV, the violence does not escalate: Johnson, Statistics Canada, 1995) About half of violence is reciprocal and the majority of non-reciprocal violence is initiated by women rather than men (whitaker, 2007), which implies that men are more self-restrained and are more often responding to instigation by women. Self-defense usually doesn’t apply to the person who started it.
The magnitude higher arrest rate of men clearly indicates that there is less deterrence for women’s use of violence. . My hypothesis: violence is most likely to escalate on the part of the person who is able to get away with it
@ TP
“The domineering, aggressive man wins favour with other men, and makes more money too.”
You left one part out. He wins favor with women, too, and always has, which was the entire point of the article. Anyone who could miss that one had best not be lecturing anyone on their lack of understanding about sexual selection. Where do you get your ideas of what women want? COSMO?
Here’s the deal, just so you understand. This is a more or less gloves off forum. I have had a reader post that she wished for my mother to be raped. The post is still there. There were a lot of other personal invectives as well, including yours.
Here’s the other deal. This is a men’s forum, as in “A Voice for Men.” It is clearly anti-feminist, anti-mangina (whether you like the fucking word or not) and pro male separatist.
And there are plenty who view this forum with respect, or did you imagine you were speaking for the entire human race?
If you want to post here, fine. But whining because the gloves are off here, especially with the personally insulting tone of your one and only post, is spineless hypocrisy.
Expect to get called on it. And if the language or phrasing is too rough, then there are millions of other websites you can visit.
All this talk about women’s physical inferiority, but what about intelligence? Such a taboo subject should stir the pot…
“For not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman but also a clear and rather startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require. “
“For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That’s statistics, not sexism.”
“Instead, he went with what the science is clearly telling us – that at the really top level in maths and science, when we’re not dealing with average intelligence but near genius, there are simply more men around who can do the job.”
“But what if he and I are right – as I am 100 per cent convinced we are? If men are innately better at certain subjects than women, then why should society struggle so hard – and so expensively – to try to engineer a perfect balance between the sexes? “
“But I say to the social engineers who dream up ever-more-ingenious ways of getting more women into top positions; don’t be surprised if you find your nobly motivated ambitions foundering on the immovable rock of human nature.“
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html#ixzz0nMmzFOOt
Paul,
‘“The domineering, aggressive man wins favour with other men, and makes more money too.”
You left one part out. He wins favor with women, too, and always has, which was the entire point of the article. Anyone who could miss that one had best not be lecturing anyone on their lack of understanding about sexual selection. Where do you get your ideas of what women want? COSMO?’
I was highlighting that YOUR article ‘left one part out’ as it ignores how men react to each other, which is of vital importance when talking about how personality traits such as dominance and aggression come about. I was also highlighting just how over simplified this is. The aggressive man wins favour with SOME women, just as the aggressive woman wins favour with SOME men. In fact I could point out an awful lot you have ‘left out’, what about gay men and women? All the families and relationships that don’t fit that rule? What about all of the contrasting images in the media that I have mentioned? I do not revel or agree with most of those media cartoons, nevertheless they do exist and people do live by them. And I would like to direct you to the sentence below the one you quoted:
‘How you decide to act, what you decide to wear etc. is not just based on what a potential mate will find appealing, it is about your own sex as much as anything else.’
Now, it would seem to me that I did include the search for a mate as well as a companion or rival. Quote mining for effect does not win points. Plus your idea that the aggressive man ‘always’ wins favour with women is again, hugely generalised and simply not true. How to do you know that it has always worked, does always work and will always work everywhere?
And as an addition, no, I do not get my ideas of what women want from COSMO. Funnily enough, I thought it depended on the woman, and think it’s pertinent to ask her.
‘This is a men’s forum, as in “A Voice for Men.” It is clearly anti-feminist, anti-mangina (whether you like the fucking word or not) and pro male separatist.’
So to be a man, I must agree with you and the ideas on this site? This is the hypocritical misandry I am talking about. Just because you are ‘a voice for men’ does not mean that I should assume you have an anti-feminist, anti-mangina, (didn’t know it was a political term) or pro male separatist agenda. Why would anyone be ‘less male’ for disagreeing with you? This is an anti-feminist site, funnily enough, I had noticed. But claiming that feminism has emasculated and marginalised men when you are doing the exact same thing strikes me as a bit odd.
And at no point did I imply I was speaking for the entire population of the world, I was speaking for those that don’t view this site with much respect, which I know for a fact the are a few at least in number. Nor did I say that there aren’t people who respect this site.
My criticism of this site is not ‘whining because the gloves are off’, like I have said, I wonder why it has to be a fight at all; I question the merits of a site that seeks to deride those who disagree with some of the points put across. My criticism is that the sexism towards both men and women on this site, and the childishness only serves to belittle your movement. I don’t care that someone wished that your mother got raped, as far as I am concerned they are idiotic too; it doesn’t justify you in any way. And just what does it matter that I have only had time to submit one post so far? How is that spineless?
Rough phrasing, oh dear, I am terrified. It is not that the material offends me or other people, again, it is because it renders your arguments useless, and basing your ideologies on over-simplified generalisations and flawed stereotypes makes your movement look like a joke. Any good ideas that manage to seep through are quickly evaporated; as I said, it is disappointing.
Denis,
Richard Lynn and the Daily Fail? These are your sources? Richard Lynn has been widely derided, firstly for his assertion that the races are split in intelligence. I suppose the reason why there are less black people in jobs requiring high levels of intelligence is because they are not as smart as whites? Hey, the man has the ‘evidence’.
He is a eugenicist, and many of those assertions mentioned in the articles are built upon flawed research techniques and confirmation bias. I mean, just look at IQ tests, they themselves are facing huge criticism for being biased.
Lynn also says,
‘For a man – at least as far as his hormone system is concerned – succeeding, competing and beating his rivals is very much still a matter of life and death.
Consequently, ambitious, high-achieving men typically work harder, compete more aggressively and become totally immersed in their careers, while even the most high-achieving women will often admit to finding themselves distracted by their genetically preconditioned aptitude for nurture and support.’
Now, with the bias in the family courts as it stands, are you surprised that the courts assume the woman wants to keep the child and the man would rather go out and get his competitive kicks rather than take on a typically feminine ‘nurturing’ role? I disagree with Lynn’s ‘theories’, a man who is taking an active role in his family life is just as concerned with ‘what to get for supper, or whether the children have got clean shirts for school,’ as a woman immersed in both family and work life would be. If not, why should men be given an equal standing in the family courts? He probably doesn’t care as much about them, and would be better looking after them by going to work and paying for their upkeep. The woman won’t be able to get one of those ‘top jobs’ anyway.
And is Richard Lynn implying when he says ‘to the social engineers who dream up ever-more-ingenious ways of getting more women into top positions; don’t be surprised if you find your nobly motivated ambitions foundering on the immovable rock of human nature,’ that a lot of the women in top jobs at the moment are a result of this social engineering, and not through their own skill or talent? Or indeed that the current situation of there being more men in those ‘top positions’ is not the result of long standing social engineering? Sweeping statements about how pre-historic humans functioned, again, puncture huge holes in this assertion. I reiterate, confirmation bias.
Thomas, you can’t dispute the statistics, facts are facts.
On the average, men are more intelligent and there are more highly intelligent men.
You can dispute the inferences from the statistics, they are only opinion.
@ TP
My article didn’t leave anything out, I just didn’t consider things that you thought were relevant, and which I don’t. Like gay men and women. I wasn’t writing about gay men and women, so why should I included them? For you?
If you want more inclusion, just for the sake of inclusion, write your own article.
And you continue to present just how short sighted you are. Women, as a rule, choose, and have always chosen aggressive men. Physically aggressive, aggressive in business and other financial pursuits, even those that aggressively pursue arts like rock music.
Oh, except gay women. They are different. Feel better now?
Your problem here is not a lack of manhood, and I take issue with your assertion that I ever implied that people who disagree are not real men. You just pulled that out of your ass. Your problem is that you don’t understand the difference between addressing a subject thoroughly and subjecting it to milquetoast PC reductionism.
You sound like a badge wearing member of the “not all” police force. Not all women are this, not all men are that, not all clovers have three leaves.
Delude yourself with all the PC minutia you want, I write these articles for the common experience of the average straight male. And sometimes I write on subjects that involve gay men, but only to the extent that we discriminate against them for not being real men, e.g. taking care of women, and how screwed up that is. Other than that I can’t speak to their lives.
Perhaps you need a kum by ya fest instead of reading on gender politics.
Women are so insecure because they proclaim equality but they know that they can’t prove it.
On average, women know that they can’t compete with men and they despise the idea of relying on men for money. They also despise the idea that most men are competing for the few truly beautiful women. That is why feminism is a Marxist socialist theory, where everyone is equal. They would rather that everybody be reduced to equal slaves, rather than men triumph at competing for success.
Alek -
“You’ve already shown this tendency twice. Paul gives you a source, then makes claims, and then you ask “what’s your source”.”
No actually, each time I’ve given refutation of the points made in the sources, but each time Paul has refused to respond to these refutations. I’m hedging my bet that this is because he doesn’t have a response to give.
“I ALREADY TOLD YOU. READ THE DARN BOOK.”
You’ve obviously read this book, how about you tell me how it convinced you rather than wasting my money?
“Why are you still arguing, based on no-research?”
I’ve supplied links and arguments, thus far, next to none of them have been responded to.
“The CEO has sacrificed balance to get there. He has probably invested 20 years of having no close relationships, 20 years of 18 hour workdays etc… Women just simply don’t make those sacrifices.”
Again, where are you getting this idea from? And if it’s from that book then quote from it, provide the studies it references, something other than ‘go buy the book’.
“Read some of the books, read some of the research, do some studying, then come back here to argue. Right now you’re arguing based on what? The ether?”
Another patronising person? What a surprise. Look, I’ve studied psychology and sociology, it’s not like I’m making stuff up, I’ve linked to articles and studies, I’ve made reasoned arguments stating why there are less women in these professions, you have then responded that women just don’t want to run the risk (unfounded bullshit) and have no obstacles in their way (again, bullshit).
“Actually, soros does a good job of controlling most of the world’s media, and he is one of the biggest sponsors of feminist causes.”
Really? Could you show me some evidence of this, be interesting to read about?
“The other thing is that the ones who aren’t feminists only care about profit, and being pro-feminist is very profitable.
Study marketing and you will find that all major marketing-firms proactively cater to females as females make 2/3 of the purchasing decisions. Over the past decades the media has learned that the more you play the female victim card, and appeal to female-as-victim card, the more money they make. Most TV producers are female, most of the middle management, etc… The actual people who DECIDE the content are female. The men at the top only care about profit, and feminism is extremely profitable.”
Again, some evidence of this please.
David, I’m going to call you out on claiming women’s self-defense as an excuse for their violence. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? If you do not have any evidence to support your claim then it is sexist and mendacious.
A proper response is to quote and cite a scientific journal, not to insist that you’re so smart and other people just need to read some books.
Denis -
“David, I’m going to call you out on claiming women’s self-defense as an excuse for their violence. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? If you do not have any evidence to support your claim then it is sexist and mendacious.”
I don’t think I ever said anything to that effect, but let me clear up any confusion.
If anyone is hit first, they should have the right to defend themselves, however, this has it’s limitations. So, if you hit me a few time, I do not have the right to bludgeon you to death, rather I have right to defend myself and make you stop. In the same way, if a man hits a woman, she can act to defend herself using reasonable force, and if a woman hits a man, he can also use reasonable force to stop her.
Where I was saying there was a difference was when a weaker person attacks a stronger person, say a child, smaller woman or smaller man, hits someone else, that person must use some level of restraint and not return equal or greater force. In all these cases, it doesn’t matter who is male or female. There is no sexism being portrayed on my part.
“Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stets and Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time.
Stets and Straus concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicate that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992)”
As stated before, there need to be clear definitions of what violence took place (here qualitative rather than quantitative research would be more useful), as a slap across the cheek is not on par with a beating, as I responded to you before:
‘You’ll note that women are recorded as higher in ‘throw something at, kick, bite, hit, etc” all of which could be a single instance, whereas men are higher in ‘beat up, strangle, choke, etc’ which show a more constant intent for harm. You can hit someone and then stop, but to beat someone up or to strangle someone is continued act.’
“The latter result is difficult to explain from a feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument that female violence is solely defensive.”
Again, I’ve never argued this, rather I’ve said that abuse from either sex, to either sex, is wrong, and I’d gladly campaign against both (in fact I was very happy to see the UK making female to male abuse more of an issue). My only point of contention here is the twisting of the facts, or at the very least, the misinterpretation of them.
“A hit with the hands is a instantaneous act. A weapon is a deliberate thoughtful response requiring two separate and deliberate actions (49% of women’s acts of violence). Choking is indeterminate since it can be an instantaneous response or an extended choking (2% of men’s acts of violence).”
As I responded above, the use of weapons are about equal for men and women, rather it is ‘throwing things at’ that is higher with women, and again, this covers a lot of ground (from teddy bears to knives) and at no point is the question asked if contact was made, nor if it was even intended to hit their partner. And I see you left out the main point I raised, that men beat up women more than women, and that is most certainly a sustained attack.
“The magnitude higher arrest rate of men clearly indicates that there is less deterrence for women’s use of violence. . My hypothesis: violence is most likely to escalate on the part of the person who is able to get away with it”
I agree with your assertion, and I’d say that this is due to patriarchy, and the concept of men being aggressive (an assumption, among many others, which feminism tries to get rid of) and therefore police will usually act on this assumption (as well as the assumption that women would never do such a thing, again which feminism tries to remove) and arrest the man.
Your hypothesis, in part I agree with, this applies to many areas of life, not paying the parking meter if you know that the parking attendants won’t come round here this time of the day, or taking a sweet from the big pile even though mum told you not to, however, I would also say that violence tends not be started by someone who doesn’t think they will come out worse from it, be that the small guy angry at the bouncer or a woman with a larger male partner.
I want to make it clear that I’m not arguing that women have it so much worse, therefore men are in the wrong, should be punished, blah, blah, blah; and feminism does not argue that point either, but rather I’m trying to correct your reading of the stats.
Denis -
“A proper response is to quote and cite a scientific journal, not to insist that you’re so smart and other people just need to read some books.”
Actually I’ve done this, or at the least made a reasoned argument, rather it is alek who is throwing the ‘read the book I like’ argument in my face.
I’ll gladly respond to any arguments he, or anyone else, wishes to make, even if they’re quoted directly from someone else, but I’m not going to spend my money to respond to an online forum post.
@ TP
“I wonder why it has to be a fight at all”
I can’t, won’t rather, attempt to argue with this sort of myopic obtuseness. There has been a war against men and boys, and their lives are ever faltering because of it. If you don’t see the need to respond, and vigorously, then hey, what can I say, it obviously has not hurt you and you care little to nothing about its effect on others.
I pray you don’t have children, though, especially any boys.
“So to be a man, I must agree with you and the ideas on this site?”
I am always tempted to give stupid questions a stupid answer, but since your vision is so lacking that you see nothing for men to fight back against, I will try to just spell it out for you like you were four years old.
No one is disputing that you are a man. I am simply calling into question what kind of man you are, and most pointedly.
In this world, for the sake of this “debate” let us say there are two kind of men. One kind of man will look a grave injustice, political and legal terrorism, boys dropping from school like flies after a fresh blast of DDT, men in prison and men with routinely destroyed lives after having done nothing wrong- simply because they are men, and will react with some dismissive, intellectualized bullshit like you have.
Another kind of man will stand up and say we need to put a stop to this, and won’t shut up, even if no changes happen.
Two men, for sure, just different kinds of men.
And I know, thanks to your posting, just the kind of man you are.
Denis -
“Thomas, you can’t dispute the statistics, facts are facts.
On the average, men are more intelligent and there are more highly intelligent men.
You can dispute the inferences from the statistics, they are only opinion.”
I believe ‘Thomas’ was not disputing the findings, but rather methodology, the bias and the inferences.
IQ tests are terrible method for measuring intelligence as they’ve long been known to be culturally biased, usually in the favour of white, Western, male, middle-aged ideals.
You haven’t responded to the question put by ‘Thomas’ of whether or not you also accepted that blacks were also less intelligent.
“Women are so insecure because they proclaim equality but they know that they can’t prove it.”
Campaigning for equal rights and equal opportunities is not the same as saying that everyone is equal. Who should get the top ten positions in a company? The 5 best men and the 5 best women? No, the 10 best people. So if that happens to be 10 men or 10 women, or 9, whatever, then that’s the way it should be. If men are more physically capable of a job, say fighting on the front line, then so be it, women will be outnumbered, but currently women as a whole should not be stopped from fighting on the front lines.
“On average, women know that they can’t compete with men”
Can’t compete with men…in general? I think it’s best one stays away from sweeping statements, especially when one doesn’t have the evidence to back up such an enormous claim.
“and they despise the idea of relying on men for money.”
I think you would to, having to live with the concept of being ‘taken care of’ and treated like an invalid.
“They also despise the idea that most men are competing for the few truly beautiful women.”
Most men? Doubt it.
“That is why feminism is a Marxist socialist theory, where everyone is equal. They would rather that everybody be reduced to equal slaves, rather than men triumph at competing for success.”
Dam, just when I need to post some sort of facepalm gif, I cant. Feminism is Marxist socialist? *facepalm* – that will have to do. Feminism says nothing about the economy, and socialism, especially Marxism, says nothing about the rights of women.
As said above, feminism does not claim we’re all equal (nor does socialism I might add), rather that each person should have equal rights and equal opportunities.
Paul, in response to your most recent reply to ‘Thomas’, you realise that feminism, in it’s effort to remove patriarchy from society, is with you in your attempts to stop the disadvantaging of anyone, yes that’s right, including men and boys, based on their sex.
The trouble that these young boys are having are as a result of patriarchy and this capitalist, abusive and greedy political system.
@ David
Patriarchy is responsible for the decrease in boys scholastic performance that has only occurred since the advent of gender feminism? Patriarchy is responsible for the steadily dropping presence of young men in college, that has only occurred since the advent of gender feminism?
Patriarchy is responsible for rape shield laws that have only emerged since the advent of gender feminism? Patriarchy is responsible for no fault divorce, which was pushed for and obtained by feminist activists?
You are either and very sloppy liar, or a fucking moron, and are hereby banished to the feminist-mangina page for your posts. Otherwise, you are out of here.
David,
I don’t dispute the evidence that IQ tests show that asians are more intelligent than whites, men are more intelligent than women and whites are more intelligent than blacks.
I also don’t dispute the socio-economic aspects that bias these results between whites, asians and blacks. What I don’t understand is how there is any bias against white women? White women have the same opportunities growing up as white men, where is the bias?
So…where is your evidence on this “straw-man” claim that women’s use of violence is for self defence? I already know that you don’t have any such evidence, I just like to repeat the question because it reflects on your character. I will post some research on this issue later when I have more time.
Just look at history…feminism was an integral part of marxist socialism.
What is the difference between “being taken care of” and “being treated like an invalid”? I don’t see the difference.
That’s right, women can’t compete with men…on average women are physically weaker and have lower IQ’s. The differences are even more dramatic at the high end. So don’t be surprised when the best person for physically and intellectually challenging job…is a man!
“Patriarchy is responsible for the decrease in boys scholastic performance that has only occurred since the advent of gender feminism?”
Probably quite a few things responsible for this, but I’d say one main thing was the integration of classes and teach methods veering away from the practical to more written, essay and memory based work. This would have occurred before second wave feminism (I’m guessing that’s what you mean when you refer to ‘gender feminism’, correct me if I’m wrong).
“Patriarchy is responsible for the steadily dropping presence of young men in college, that has only occurred since the advent of gender feminism?”
As more women go into college, and the money isn’t provided to expand classes at the rate needed, there are obviously going to be less places for men.
“Patriarchy is responsible for rape shield laws that have only emerged since the advent of gender feminism?”
No, that’s feminism, and does, or should, apply to both sexes.
“Patriarchy is responsible for no fault divorce, which was pushed for and obtained by feminist activists?”
Again, that’s feminism, and is open to both sexes (obviously, as both sexes have to agree to it).
“You are either and very sloppy liar, or a fucking moron, and are hereby banished to the feminist-mangina page for your posts. Otherwise, you are out of here.”
How about you let me respond to criticism in the relative place rather than attempting to censor me?
Denis -
“What I don’t understand is how there is any bias against white women? White women have the same opportunities growing up as white men, where is the bias?”
The questions asked are focused at the experiences of men. I think we’ll agree that men and women go through different experiences, and on a whole, men and women tend to talented in different areas such as men tending to be better with spacial awareness. Much like education, it is hard to get a balanced mix for an IQ test for both sexes.
“So…where is your evidence on this ‘straw-man’ claim that women’s use of violence is for self defence? I already know that you don’t have any such evidence, I just like to repeat the question because it reflects on your character.”
…I think it reflects a little more on your character, that even though I’ve responded to this question already, and you have not responded to that post, you continue to question me as if I have no answer to you. Just to avoid any confusion, I’ll repost my response here:
I don’t think I ever said anything to that effect, but let me clear up any confusion.
If anyone is hit first, they should have the right to defend themselves, however, this has it’s limitations. So, if you hit me a few time, I do not have the right to bludgeon you to death, rather I have right to defend myself and make you stop. In the same way, if a man hits a woman, she can act to defend herself using reasonable force, and if a woman hits a man, he can also use reasonable force to stop her.
Where I was saying there was a difference was when a weaker person attacks a stronger person, say a child, smaller woman or smaller man, hits someone else, that person must use some level of restraint and not return equal or greater force. In all these cases, it doesn’t matter who is male or female. There is no sexism being portrayed on my part.
“Just look at history…feminism was an integral part of marxist socialism.”
For example…? Yes you have Marxist feminists, and socialist feminists, but then you also have capitalist feminists, feminists who think that women should not be disadvantaged in the workplace so that they can take advantage of the working classes just as much as men, make as much money, at expense of others, as men do. Again, feminism says nothing about socio-economics and Marxist socialism says nothing about women.
“What is the difference between “being taken care of” and “being treated like an invalid”? I don’t see the difference.”
Don’t really see how this is relative to the debate, but one can be taken care of without being being an invalid, and one can not does not have to be cared for just because they are an invalid, rather then could be looked down upon, even mocked or abused.
“That’s right, women can’t compete with men…on average women are physically weaker and have lower IQ’s. The differences are even more dramatic at the high end. So don’t be surprised when the best person for physically and intellectually challenging job…is a man!”
Well you’re still yet to defend sexual bias in IQ tests, or in fact provide the usefulness of an IQ test, and in fact, any difference between men and women tends to be about 3 – 4 points, which if not within a statistically acceptable range for error, is just outside of it.
As I’ve said before, I don’t care if a the top 10 positions of a company are filled by all men or all women, just so long as they were the best people for the job. There is no reason why there should be no women on the front lines, relatively few women in law or politics and next to none in higher business positions.
David,
The reason why there are much fewer women in the most high level positions is because of intelligence:
“For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That’s statistics, not sexism.”
Even in victorian times, when middle class women had easy access to music and art, there are very few extraordinary examples of accomplished women. Even today, there are very few women at MIT, where only the best of the best are accepted.
3-4 IQ points is actually quite significant difference, not for normal daily activities, but for high level thought. How do you make “1+1=2″ more gender balanced so that women can compete on a level playing field?
Just like feminist academics have always done, you make straw man arguments without any evidence and you believe that it holds value until it is disproven with facts. The fact is, if a man responds to any violence from a woman, he will be arrested, whether he is bigger or smaller or did more or less damage. If the woman started it, she will get all the services of the state with no questions asked. Violent women are coddled, violent men are held accountable.
Women’s Self-Defence – Debunked
Despite claims by victim advocates to the contrary, (Hamberger & Potente, 1994; Henning et al., 2003), self-defense is not the predominant motive for assaults by either gender. Reports of self-defense by women range from as low as 5% in clinic samples (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995), up to 40% among women residing in shelters (Saunders, 1986). General population surveys and studies of dating populations (Follingstad et al., 1991; Sommer, 1994) fix the rates of self-defense at only between 10% and 20%, for men and women. The extent to which men or women engage in genuine self-defense is unclear, due to the difficulty in distinguishing it from retaliation. In a large representative English sample (Carrado et al., 1996), 21% of the women and 27% of the men who had been violent reported that their motive was “getting back at him/her for some physical action she/he had used against me.” What percentage of these figures represent self-defense was not determined by the researchers.
DeKesseredy et al. (DeKeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz, & Shahid, 1997) does report data but their data shows that only 6.9% of the women acted in self-defense. Rather than self-defense, the most usual motivations for violence by women, like the motivations of men, are coercion, anger, and punishing misbehavior by their partner (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Fiebert & Gonzalez, 1997).
Like the DeKesseredy et al. study, five of the six found that only a small percentage of female violence was in self-defense (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar, 1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Felson & Messner, 1998; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; Pearson, 1997;Sarantakos, 1998; Sommer, 1996). For the one study that found high rates of self-defense, the percentage in selfdefense was slightly greater for men (56%) than for women (42%) (Harned, 2001).
Women’s Self-Defence – Debunked
For example, Pearson (1997) reports that 90% of the women she studied assaulted their partner because they were furious or jealous, or frustrated and not because they tried to defend themselves. These motives are parallel to the motivations of male perpetrators. Research on homicides by women shows similar results. For example, Jurik and Gregware (1989) studied 24 female perpetrated homicides and found that 60% had a pervious criminal record, 60% had initiated use of physical force, and only 21% of the homicides were in response to “prior abuse” or “threat of abuse/death”.
You could try making an argument that women are more fearful, there is some evidence to show that women are just much bigger wimps than men. However, the solution to such a problem is that women just need to “man-up”, rather than society treat them like children.
On Race Baiting
The fundamental mistake of intellectual frauds is making unsupported claims of causation because of correlation. The IQ gap between men and women and asians, whites and blacks is very real, but there is very little evidence of causation. Even if a large component of the gap is attributed to cultural and socio-economic realities, that doesn’t change the facts by providing an excuse or making false claims of victimhood. There is very little evidence that privileged asians are oppressing whites or that privileged white men are oppressing women and blacks. They have only themselves to blame. It’s amazing that with all the years of preferential treatment for women that they have barely made a dent in engineering. What could possibly the cause, other than themselves?
Perhaps if IQ tests contained a component for emotional intelligence, then women would score more equally to men. However, business managers would also score more equally to inventors and scientists. Perhaps we could even design a test where everybody scores almost equally.
Case Study:
A woman has a shotgun and threatens that she wants to kill her husband.
A man defends himself from being attacked with a knife by punching her in the face.
Who’s the bigger threat and who’s going to jail?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/06/30/when-hes-violent-to-her-its-a-felony-when-she-stabs-him-its-a-mental-health-issue/
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2844
Denis -
“3-4 IQ points is actually quite significant difference, not for normal daily activities, but for high level thought.”
Source? And again can you provide a source for IQ tests actually being a good measure of intelligence? And please define intelligence.
“How do you make “1+1=2″ more gender balanced so that women can compete on a level playing field?”
You think IQ tests ask 1+1?
“Just like feminist academics have always done, you make straw man arguments without any evidence and you believe that it holds value until it is disproven with facts.”
Such as?
“The fact is, if a man responds to any violence from a woman, he will be arrested, whether he is bigger or smaller or did more or less damage. If the woman started it, she will get all the services of the state with no questions asked. Violent women are coddled, violent men are held accountable.”
Are you reading what I post? I don’t support this, feminism does not support this, and in it’s fight against sexual stereotypes it stands right beside you in trying to do away with the idea that men are aggressive and responsible for domestic violence.
“Women’s Self-Defence….”
Fuck sake, read what I write! I’ve not argued this!
David wrote: “I’m guessing by ‘female perpetrators’ it is meant that a woman who has assaulted a male, making no mention if this was in self-defence, nor whether the woman was injured to a greater extent, and in this case, whether the man initiated the violence.”
Clearly, self defense is not an excuse except in a small minority of cases (maybe 10%). Let’s see, 50% of DV is reciprocal. For the remaining non-reciprocal violence, 35% initiated by women, 15% initiated by men.
Yes, feminist do defend the status quo of stereotyping men as violent agressors and women as harmless victims. They defend women the same way as you have done by suggesting that they are smaller and weaker and acting in self-defence.
Fuck sake, do you’re own damn research on how IQ is measured!
Sometimes, even Paul makes a mistake…he mentioned Mick Jagger,but he forgot me…^^ Rula is a sex symbol, too!!…But hey…let me tell you why I chase away all those sexy ladies in front of my door….I DONT WANNA LIVE WITH A FEMINIST WOMAN and I dont make any efforts to “flirt” with ladies anymore.Why? too ugly, too old, lost my touch, not enuff money, no more sex drive?? hell…none of that…simply i just dont wanna do all that shit again that women expect of men…going on ur knees for them, being polite, buying flowers, carrying bags, giving up your hobbies, quit smoking, stop dating male friends, get a decent modern hairstyle and a pink shirt coz its en vogue, blah blah etc. pp….lets be honest…is a good fuck really worth the price u pay after all??
I just say NO…(anybody remembers Al Bundy`s ” N.O- M.A.M.” organization?? He was lightyears ahead, that guy!haha
Denis -
I wrote: “I’m guessing by ‘female perpetrators’ it is meant that a woman who has assaulted a male, making no mention if this was in self-defence, nor whether the woman was injured to a greater extent, and in this case, whether the man initiated the violence.”
I did indeed write this, and you’ll note I did not say that female perpetrators means they were acting in self-defence, but rather that the term used is extremely vague and may include the above mentioned, therefore I was discounting it.
“Clearly, self defense is not an excuse except in a small minority of cases (maybe 10%).”
So when a man is attacked by a woman, is he allowed to defend himself?
“Let’s see, 50% of DV is reciprocal. For the remaining non-reciprocal violence, 35% initiated by women, 15% initiated by men.”
Source.
“Yes, feminist do defend the status quo of stereotyping men as violent agressors and women as harmless victims. They defend women the same way as you have done by suggesting that they are smaller and weaker and acting in self-defence.”
Smaller and weaker on a whole, yes, that’s basic biology, but self-defence, AGAIN, no, I’ve not said this as a general statement, nor as one that only applies to women.
“Fuck sake, do you’re own damn research on how IQ is measured!”
I have, I’m studying psychology and sociology, I know it’s a shit method of measuring intelligence. I’m asking you to defend it as you seem to hold it such high esteem.
RulaZ -
“I DONT WANNA LIVE WITH A FEMINIST WOMAN and I dont make any efforts to “flirt” with ladies anymore…i just dont wanna do all that shit again that women expect of men…going on ur knees for them, being polite, buying flowers, carrying bags, giving up your hobbies, quit smoking, stop dating male friends, get a decent modern hairstyle and a pink shirt coz its en vogue, blah blah etc. pp….lets be honest…is a good fuck really worth the price u pay after all??”
You’ve obviously been with a feminist woman if she’s expecting all that crap off you.
I feel I should point out that my last comment was sarcastism
Sarcastism – the combination of sarcasm and sarcastic…ok, I need sleep now.
What’s a matter with you David, you certainly have access to a library (at no cost) and the internet to support your claims? You could even ask your professor. At the very least you could make an effort at explaining and substantiating “IQ tests are shit”. I’m a psych / soc student doesn’t give your opinion any credibility. Maybe you should get your professor to explain it for you.
IQ tests are meaningless for most activities in life. However, IQ tests matter for the most mentally demanding tasks requiring concentration and problem solving ability. I have a high regard for genius, brilliance and innovation. For the majority of the population, not so important.
“Let’s see, 50% of DV is reciprocal. For the remaining non-reciprocal violence, 35% initiated by women, 15% initiated by men.”
Maybe your feminist professor didn’t bother to teach you all the research:
The Fiebert meta-analysis of 237,750 which demonstrates that women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive, than men.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Centers for Disease Control, Whitaker study found 24% of relationships had violence, half of it reciprocal and that women commited over 70% of the non-reciprocal violence and initiated the reciprocal violence more often than men.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a
The problem with excusing women’s use of violence because they are smaller or possibly acting in self defense is a wrong approach for the majority of DV. The status quo is actually potentially for women, men and children. Women who initiate violence (low deterrent and ample excuses) are more likely to get hurt and so are men. Children learn these behaviors and there are many living in the homes of abusive women who don’t get treated.
When has a man ever had any excuse for violence, regardless of his size?
@ david: not like that…she was far far away from bein a feminist…lol…but i think nowadays its hard to find a woman that is not “under the influence”…I am not so cheap to hate women now because of bad exoperiences, its just my attitude today and my conviction…i am not a frustrated dumbass^^
Let me repeat: The status quo set up and defended by feminists, reinforces false stereotypes and is dangerous to men, women and children.
David wrote: “We’ve already talked about this, slapping someone is not the same as beating them up, and with the research you’ve provided, men do more choking, strangling and beating up, than women.”
Male n=103,239, Female n=113,961
Push, grab, shove, slap, kick, bite, punch
Male=39.6%, Female=40.5%
Threats or use of weapons
Male=48.0%, Female=48.6%
Beat up
Male 10.6%, Female=10.7%
Choke or strangle
Male=1.8%, Female=0.2%
Source:
http://www.maennerbuero-trier.de/Archer_2002.pdf
…and he dares to claim that feminists are trying to eliminate stereotypes
I was just beginning. I hadn’t even gotten into the policies and practices of women’s shelters, VAWA, feminist jurisprudence (ABA mythology), widespread academic disagreement on social policies and criticism of ideological feminism, etc. etc.
A primer of the widespread academic fraud and feminist bigotry:
The Gender Paradigm, The Conflict of Theory and Data
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf
Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: The Evidence, The Denial, and the Implications for Primary Prevention and Treatment
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70-Gender-symmetry-PV-Chap-11-09.pdf
Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology
and science in domestic violence research and practice
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf
Paul,
I speak an open and disinterested language, dictated by no passion but that of humanity. This PC bullshit you are angling for is a poor show. Your article is talking about how men have developed behavioural traits in society and you think that reducing how men behave in society to just some crackpot idea of how women sexually select men is a complete and meaningful article? I don’t want ‘inclusion for the sake of inclusion’ I want it because it’s vital to your point. You have said ‘it is really simple.’ It isn’t. How is anyone supposed to take MRA ideas on gender politics seriously with shoddy reasoning like this?
And we are back again to you saying that women always have and still do select aggressive men. Got any evidence for that? Don’t even try suggesting ‘common sense’ or some other such nonsense. I cannot believe that you are placing blame for aggression in men on women. It is ridiculous. Why is anyone even studying sociology or psychology when you have the whole of humanity sussed out so perfectly eh?
You are writing for the ‘average straight male’ are you? Show me one, I wouldn’t know what the average straight male looked like. Are they American? Polish? African? Old or young? Straight or single, successful or disappointed, blonde with blue eyes? This is ‘a voice for men’? Not all men it would seem. Are some more equal than others? This isn’t PC minutia Paul, it is ‘thorough’. But then again, with your vast, blundering generalisations, I suppose everything else must seem pretty small.
You take issue with my assertion?
‘Whether you are an emasculated quasi-male sycophant…’
Take issue with your own fucking website. And while your at it, clean out your own rectum before making assumptions on anyone else’s.
Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man.
Denis,
‘Women are so insecure because they proclaim equality but they know that they can’t prove it.
On average, women know that they can’t compete with men and they despise the idea of relying on men for money. They also despise the idea that most men are competing for the few truly beautiful women. That is why feminism is a Marxist socialist theory, where everyone is equal. They would rather that everybody be reduced to equal slaves, rather than men triumph at competing for success.’
Thank you doctor Denis. Tell me, when are taking over from Freud? cos that is fucking priceless psychology right there, are you in line for a Nobel Prize?
Free market, no welfare, fuck the poor, you think that this right-wing bullshit doesn’t fuck over men and women alike? Women can’t ‘prove’ equality? Just WHEN did you prove your ‘equality’? When did you prove your worth? And who was your judge? Are you saying honestly, that people should not be treated equally? How the fuck do you legislate for that? Who gets to say who is deserving and who isn’t?
Just another note to Paul, I am surprised that this little gem of a comment hasn’t been criticised by you. And if you agree completely, it serves only to disappoint me further at the depth a group calling for equal rights is sinking to.
Denis, you are a fool. That article does not put forward any ‘facts’. I suggest you re-read it critically. You seem to hint at a knowledge of the difference between fact and opinion, but cannot demonstrate it practically. You are an embarrassment to any group proclaiming gender equality, get back to the archaic idiocy from whence you came.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbAohexT0Ho&feature=related
Not to boil this down to any reductionist google search or empirical wiki link, but I happen to agree with the article to the extent that I am willing to squirt out a modicum of neurotransmitters if for nothing less than my own self arousal.
In this dark and vacuous space between my ears and eternity, gasping at the tide, nay the very tidal wave of deconstructed experience. The looming shadow, evil in it’s essence lurking, lounging and lusting, but there in it’s darkest form. In a distant scape I dare not visit on the very horizon of my awareness, threatening the construct of my comfort and the future of my very existence.
I dare not look, no save me please save me……….I can’t bear to look!!!!
But yes, some chic’s dig bad boys, cause they make for good camouflage.
Although this notion may effect the social policy of future sinking’s of the Titanic in a quantum sort of way.
Evil doth lurk in the hearts of……………………………………………wait for it…………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………women.
OK!!! there it is I said it.
Cat’s out of the bag pussies out of the pouch
Call the misogyny police, I give up, I’ll turn in my FleshLight, I just can’t go on with ruze any longer. This mundane objectification of synthetic oil byproducts.
I surrender
@Thomas Paine
If women wanted to prove that they were equal, then they would be seeking equal representation in the glass cellar and not just the glass ceiling. I’ve worked in the glass cellar to support myself and put myself through university and I’ve never lived off another person’s hard work. Everything that is normally expected from men, but not women.
As for the rest of your comment, meh, fuck off!
Wow amazing that with all the years of preferential treatment for women that they have barely made a dent in engineering. What could possibly the cause, other than themselves?
@TP (I don’t mean Thomas Paine, a great MAN, but the other TP using his great name)
“You are an embarrassment to any group proclaiming gender equality, get back to the archaic idiocy from whence you came.”
I don’t think anyone here is proclaiming gender equality nor is any man who has ever been thru Harry The Great. Please limit your delusions to yourself.
As to archaic idiocy.. just wait, its about to get medieval in the west real soon when TSHTF! Quite frankly, I am not in favor of arguing with feminists at all. There is only one language they understand, that of monster known to the lefty world as Chairman Mao.
@David
It is funny to watch feminist manginas puke everything they possibly can, demand statistics.. etc., etc. Amazingly conforming to a stereotypical “feminist” response.. are all feminists cast from the same die?
You make a pathetic attempt to shame/dissuade any man who demolishes a mere theory based on things he sees everyday. Well, I wonder what drives you to such desperation? The pursuit of truth? Or does it bother you that he does not buy into statistics and figures propagandized by your ilk?
Hehehe.. MGTOW simply wont buy into your crap anymore, our numbers are growing and we are the innovative gender and have figured out ways where none existed in the past. If you weren’t a feminist, you would be worried by now.
I’ve always noticed that women are attracted to the “bad boys”. I’ve seen women leave really hard working decent men for these types and then a few years later after broken bones or waiting for them to come home from jail only to have the men dump them like a sack of rotten potatoes want to suddenly go back to the decent man she dumped.
These women also expect the man they dumped to put their life on hold and wait for them until they call again.
Unfortunately; I’ve also seen the after effect after the woman uses and abuses the good man and then goes running back or to a new bad boy.
Gentlemen-I’ve been working in criminal justice for the past few years. I’m in my twenties. There are some jobs that are for men. Being young, men my age and even slightly older look at me weird when I joke “get me barefoot and pregnant.” I really desire a more traditional and patriarchal lifestyle. Within reason, I want to be submissive to man. Women used to be homemakers and carrying babies because it worked. I wish I could have this life.
Feminism has broken the long standing social contract between men and woman. The MRM is dedicated to ending men’s part of the bargain. This includes both support and protection of women. You will need to “woman-up” and earn your own way, just like the rest of us. There are no more free rides.
@ladyL:
After being forcefed womens superiority in all things that matter my whole life, I, on the other hand, don’t think you should be allowed to take the easy way out like that. I would much more prefer to see you work on oil rig, as north atlantic crab fishermen, on high-rise scaffolds, in the sewers and in the coalmines. That way you can really enjoy the advantages of high wages that comes with working in jobs that has the potential of killing you. In times of war you should of course be sent to the frontlines immediately, and you shouldn’t be allowed to vote while being there.
Meanwhile we men will be playing computergames with the kids, that you don’t get to see more than every 2 weeks, will be going fishing and hunting with them, invent stuff as always, and live on social welfare provided by women.
-And I’m pretty sure you won’t hear us whine about it, either.
I do work in a job that could kill me. I worked with convicted felons that hit on me and threaten me. I’ve been hospitalized because of an inmate. I have never had welfare. I do not yet have kids, because I know how to take a pill. I’m talking about staying with one man, and my future. I’m not talking about being a bum. I want to settle and have kids like people used to, not different daddies and child support.
Marriage rates are in free fall. Men are walking away from women in mass (MGTOW). The days you long for are long over.
Remember, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” If your job is dangerous or you don’t like it, find another one. Don’t look for a man to bail you out, especially men that have taken the red pill.
I encourage you to take some time here. Look though the articles. Check out misandry, rape hysteria, false allegations, no fault divorce, and parental alienation to name a few.
See what men are up against. See what you’re up against. Who knows you might even take the red pill and join the MRM.
Ehh…I was adressing the topic in general, and your story doesn’t really make me want to change a single comma.
Not a single one.
Well, I would change a typo or two of mine but that’s it.
Comma, huh?
Yeah, you know, the small marks that I suck at.
I suspect that the only thing that would create a level playing field would be the institution of contract law in civil unions, and a government that would require those contracts be upheld.
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” is bullshit. If anything, the woman’s movement has hurt us all. Men and women are different; everyone needs to accept that. I’m not saying a woman is an idiot and can’t get an education, but appreciate those differences between the sexes. I don’t want to be equal to a man, or above a man. I want to be a part of him and the family unit. I have no issues with taking a good man’s name (in marriage), and doing all that I can to make him happy.
I think it is the point that we are different that irks feminists. It also irks certain political ideologies which I will not mention here.
When we demand equality, does anyone even know what they are demanding? Are any of us equal to Einstein or Hawking in cognitive ability? Are any of us equal to olympic power lifters in physical ability? Are any of us equal to Kant or Epicurus in philosophising?
Past that, do we really want equality for everyone? What about pedophiles? Are they equally free to express their sexual tastes? Is the psychopath equally encouraged to vent her murderous desires? Should children be given the equal right to vote? Should a fetus have the right to vote? Equality without balance is a ridiculous and empty concept that most people don’t want to hear because thinking is harder than bleating along with the sound of the herd.
I agree. Pedophiles are subhuman, to me. No forgiveness there.
Anyways, I agree with your other points, as well. As much as I’d like it to be, my writing is not equal to that of Ralph Waldo Emerson (I’m a bit of a nerd).
I won’t identify myself as either party (you can’t sum me up with a “republican” or “democrat” label. But, total equality is bs. I bet you can move furniture and figure out my vehicle better than I can. I bet that I’d be more likely to give birth (LOL). I like being a woman, and most of what it entails.
On a different note, I like your pic
If I could find a man to take me back to “the good ol days,” I would take him!
Thing is though, they are human. They are just deviant in their desires. We want to divide deviance up into 2 distinct classes, acceptable and unacceptable, and then apply different standards for each. Homosexuals are classified as acceptable, so theirs is genetic, nature, ‘born that way’ without choice. Pedophiles, sociopaths, and other deviants… environment, nurture, decided to be evil. Our fragile egos refuse to face the point that a simple change in hormone level or randomly switched gene can take someone from baseline normal to monster. We cannot bear to look in the mirror of humanity and admit that we are so insignificant to the machinations of the universe that something random, mundane, and microscopic can pre-ordain to a large extent our very future. It is just too humbling, and far more convenient to simply pass judgment on those deviants and remove them from society.
I am by no means attempting to justify pedophilia. I have compassion for a rabid animal, but understand the necessity of having to put it down. But until we swallow our pride and look at what really causes such deviance, we will never be able to take steps to prevent it. We will be forever stuck in the role of putting down the ‘monsters’ while convincing ourselves that what we are doing is good and ethical.
This is not the place to comment on my photo. My personal blog covers that in a much more appropriate medium.
help me get to your blog?
I’m not that big on self promotion. Google my screen name if you are that interested. Blog would most likely be the first one on the list. Most people don’t like what they see there, which suits me just fine.