Some of the comments on my last post, “The Boy Problem in Education is the Nation’s Problem,” deserve a response, (the original comments are posted below that post). Denis said, “FEMALES brought this situation about, both through action and inaction.” A small group of women brought about many of society’s current problems through political action. Court decisions created some of them. Many women did not want the changes feminism brought. Much of the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s occurred while some of us were children and some women of today weren’t born yet. Many women simply inherited those societal changes. Denis has a better point about inaction. Many women, including myself, did nothing for two reasons.
The first is that we devoted so much time and effort to our education and careers that we didn’t seek information on these issues. Some men are guilty of that as well. For example, people who didn’t have sons in school didn’t notice inequities in education. Likewise, many people never thought about the possibility of false accusations of domestic violence until someone they knew was falsely accused.
The second reason is that people have to actively seek information about these issues. The major newspapers and tv networks provide little and, often one-sided, coverage. For example, the feature story on Friday’s episode of 20/20 was about an abused wife. Additionally, it was the second airing of that segment. According to the CDC website, “a national study found that 29% of women and 22% of men had experienced physical, sexual or psychological intimate partner violence during their lifetime.” However, I don’t recall seeing any stories on major newsmagazine shows featuring abused men. I didn’t become aware of men’s issues until I started listening to talk radio and getting news from the internet. Websites such this one bring men’s issues to light. Letter writing campaigns to tv networks, newspapers and their advertisers might persuade them to provide more fair coverage on issues such as sexual harassment, domestic violence and family courts.
Denis dismisses the fact that women were discouraged from becoming homemakers, yet it is the major way feminism hurt women. In her comments, Dierdre rightly points out that it wasn’t just feminists pushing women into careers. My parents, teachers, friends, (male and female), and the media all pushed the idea that career success was everything. Men aren’t exempt: Many of them wanted their future wives to be career women. Many women told females never to give up careers because, if they became housewives, they would end up penniless with children to care for when their husbands traded them in for newer models. Schools taught that having children causes overpopulation and lowers the parents’ standard of living.
Finally, authors like Darla Shine, (Happy Housewives), and Carrie Lukas, (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism), are letting women know that homemaking is a valid choice. However, feminists who bash women for wanting to be housewives are still around. Last week “philosopher” Linda Hirshman, (Get to Work), described stay at home moms as mindless or intellectually dead, (I don’t remember her exact words), on a talk radio show. Many girls grew up hearing comments like that. Programs like “Desperate Housewives” reinforce the low esteem in which society holds housewives by portraying them as neurotics, domineering bitches, gold diggers, adulteresses or incompetent flakes.
Denis points out that women usually initiate divorce proceedings. This doesn’t tell the whole story. The spouse who files isn’t always the spouse who brought about the end of the marriage. For example, one spouse may commit adultery and the other may react by filing for divorce. In a later post, Denis offered some constructive suggestions starting with family courts. Like most Americans, he wants equitable division of rights and responsibilities. Women, (and many men), haven’t spoken up about the subject because they didn’t know about it. Those who haven’t been through the system and don’t have a family member or close friend who has have no idea what settlements and arrangements are made. Even when one knows of an unfair decision, he/she still doesn’t know if that is an exception or the rule. The best thing that can be done to raise awareness is to publicize inequitable rulings on general interest websites and in the mainstream press.
A comment on male contraception as a means to end unwanted paternity was also posted. There is hope on that front. Hormonal contraceptives to suppress sperm production are being tested in conjunction with testosterone replacement. The challenge is stopping sperm production without loss of libido or secondary sex characteristics.
I also agree with Denis that affirmative action should end. Most of those whom it supposedly “helped” would have achieved the same things without it and are angry to have their hard work and achievements discounted. While it may be common in government agencies and government-funded institutions, affirmative action may have quietly ended in private industry. The possibility of discrimination suits for firings or failure to promote may even discourage companies from hiring minorities and women.
False accusations of sexual harassment or any other crime should be prosecuted. Those who make such accusations should be given meaningful sentences. Additionally, those who file false charges should be subject to civil lawsuits for damages caused by false accusations.
Denis also points out the unequal penalties for men and women who have sex with minors. I wrote a previous post the topic, “When Beauty is the Beast,” in which I pointed out that society has a duty to protect children from predators of both sexes. When it comes to this topic, it seems more women than men support harsh sentences for female predators. Some men see it as fulfillment of a boy’s fantasy and don’t take it seriously as a crime.
In his last post, Denis stated “Schools must treat boys and men fairly compared to girls and women.” That was the point of my last post.
I also agree with Denis that laws apply equally to all. Furthermore, the facts about domestic violence should receive more publicity. 22% of men have suffered some sort of abuse by a partner and 60% of child abusers are women. Female victims of domestic violence receive many column inches of newsprint and plenty of tv airtime, but male victims don’t.
I, too, believe those who served in the military should be rewarded for their service and those who served in combat should be given more than those who haven’t. The GI Bill is one such reward.
Denis suggests women vote Republican. Democrats have become the “victicrat” party. Luckily, many have tired or their message that more tax money and more government involvement in peoples’ lives will solve societal ills. The drawback to the idea of voting Republican in some areas is a lack of Republican candidates. Open seats in my state legislative district include one senator and three delegates. How many Republicans filed to run for these offices to date? Zero. People who want a more equitable society and are able to do so should consider running for office.
Denis states that women have to choose between hostility from men and being treated preferentially or honest and fair treatment. That is the wrong approach. It only discourages women from trying to highlight inequities and encouraging fair treatment of men. When a woman’s attempt to highlight an injustice results in her and all women being blamed for that injustice, she thinks, “Why bother?” More equitable laws won’t be achieved by alienating half of the population. When someone is on your side, accept it. Save the hostility for those who are clearly against you.
Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 07/31/06, all rights reserved
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Denis said,
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/23/the-boy-problem-in-education-is-the-nations-problem/#comments
Some of what I initially said can be found below. I usually prefer working from actual statements than from the paraphrasing of my statements(and posted for those readers not interested in going to the initial link):
“Being forced to rely on one’s weakest skills, being made to feel like a second class citizen and being assigned boring material are all morale busters.”
“According to the National Education Association, only about 25% of U.S. public school teachers are male. Men are discouraged from teaching by low pay and by the stereotype that men who want to work with children or teenagers are pedophiles.”
“The frequent portrayal of men as idiots in commercials and sit-coms can lead boys to have low expectations of themselves.”
You are missing the big picture Eva. There are those morale busters and they are important but they are indicative of bigger issues. Those issues you site do add to the problem, but these issues themselves stem from a bigger problem and male students underperforming is just one result.
For the vast majority of my life this country has had an obsession with meeting not only the needs of girls and women but also an obsession with meeting their wants. This was all based on a lie that women and girls have been disadvantaged in this country by this invisible patriarchy. Men have always done the hard work and men have always done the dying in wartime, and men were always expected to take care of the females. Always.
But because so many of you women for 40+ years bought into the lie of how badly you were treated by the men, and with enforcement by the goverment, women have far and away all the advantages in both the work world and the family.
Companies for 40+ have been scambling to hire and promote over the men and that obsession by corporations continues in full force, unabated today. That was a mans primary role: provider. But women and the government see to it that men compete agaisnt women with unfair advantage and it is the women who usually win that unfair competition.
In the family, well Eva, let’s just say that you women own the family today. You know it and I know it.
This has been going on for more than 2 generations. The boys you speak of here mostly come from single parent “families”, i.e., sons with a mother but no father present.
In this world, a smarter question would be “why should males really care about anything anymore?”
Your gender has spent 40+ years telling us men you don’t need a man.
OK. You win. We get the message. Actually, we GOT the message a while ago.
Years ago there was a cartoon called Peanuts. You may remember that Lucy would always temp Charlie Brown into kicking the football but at the last minute Lucy pulled away the football and Charlie Brown again would fall on his ass. Charlie Brown always believed Lucy. He always fell on his ass.
Well, men today get it. We know that everything is about girls and women and what they want. Everything wrong in the world is mens fault. Your gender has been trashing us men for decades on that one.
Why the hell should boys and men even bother to get up in the morning?
Yea America will be hurt by ignoring half it’s population. That should not be the concern or responsibility of the men or boys. Why should it be. Your gender has more to lose then the males anyways.
The greatest force that has created civilizations and pushed society forward (all done by men btw) is when men have a stake in their families and society. Men create and work, and propel society forward when they can provide for their families. When men have a stake in society.
Your gender took that away. Why should men care if society collapses?
Unless, of course, all you and the rest of the women care about, is that we men do the fighting and dying to preserve all the perks you have in life these days.
Then we received comments from others.
Then you emailed me and I replied to your email:
EVA EMAILS ME:
Well, the following should give a little insight of the inner working of Eva’s brain:
Eva Ellsworth wrote:
You wrote, “Your gender has spent 40+ years telling us men you don’t need a man.” I am sick and tired of being blamed for something I DIDN’T DO and that most women didn’t support. Most women were fine with men being the providers, but were told that it was unaccceptable to want to be a wife and mother and that, if a woman didn’t excel in college and at careers, she was a failure and a burden. Men didn’t exactly complain when women went to work and brought men their paychecks. Most men show no signs of wanting to be providers.
Well too damn bad Eva. YOUR GENDER…e.g., FEMALES brought this situation about, both through action and inaction. Most women bought into feminism early and many women support it today-even if they don’t want to be CALLED feminists. Most women have at least one unfair perk they don’t want to give up. Until that little perk becomes an issue these women appear normal and even fair. We men supported equal rights for women. Who told you it was unacceptable to be wives and mothers? Not men. It was the feminists. And you believed them why again? How is THAT my fault or problem? And when things went too far, women, including yourself waited until the bottom of the 12th inning to say one word about the unfairness. And mainly because men were starting to get noticeably hostile. (stick around-it’s gonna get a LOT worse). If you are sick and tired of hearing about uncomfortable truths that is not my problem. Get used to it. I don’t respond well to whining women. Especially American women.
“Years ago there was a cartoon called Peanuts. You may remember that Lucy
would always temp Charlie Brown into kicking the football but at the
last minute Lucy pulled away the football and Charlie Brown again would
fall on his ass. Charlie Brown always believed Lucy. He always fell on
his ass.” That is what happened to women. The goal posts were moved, so that being homemakers was no longer acceptable to society. We accomodated and worked our asses off only to learn that was unacceptable to men.
Oh PLEASE! Who the hell said being a homemaker was not acceptable? Feminists. Not men. We men don’t have any problem with hard work either and we recognize it and accept it in women when it occurs. No man I have ever known, and that includes myself, has complained about something earned fairly. As a guy, in my lifetime, there have been far more examples-far more-of incompetent women getting ahead for one reason: their anatomy.
“Well, men today get it. We know that everything is about girls and women
and what they want. Everything wrong in the world is mens fault. Your
gender has been trashing us men for decades on that one.” I can see from your comments that you have no clue what women, (normal women, not hard core gender feminists), want. I haven’t heard any women in real life, say “everything,” (or anything for that matter), is men’s fault. Maybe you should turn off “The View” or whatever you are watching.
Yea right. It’s easy to see things as not so bad when it’s your side that is not on the receiving end of the unfairness and injustice. And like a typical American woman you presume to know me so well that you are convinced I could not know “normal women”. Please. It is the normal women who now make up the 8 in 10 who initiate divorce (in a 50+ divorce rate culture). I know of many men who went down this road. Yea they were normal alright. And they knew exactly how to maximize their return on that deal. I could site plenty of differing examples with the same message-women take advantage of their advantages when they need to or want to. Because they can. Women know those advantages are out there. We men know those advantages are out there for women too. We also know that we men have no such advantages. Funny, when women were yapping and complaining in the 60s and 70s men could not jump to their aid fast enough. All men get today from women (and you are yet another example-yawn) is whining. And no empathy. Your problem is that you are an American woman.
Since you blame all women for the actions of a few feminists, do you also blame all whites for slavery.
Actually I blame feminists for injustice against blacks. Modern feminism started with the WKKK and the discrimination and hatred of blacks since the Civil War and the end of slavery falls squarely on the early feminists and the suffragetes. Feminists, along with all those duped “normal” women who have spread feminism’s destruction throughout this country have done far more damage to American society than any other group. For more on this go to “Margaret Sanger-More Feminist Hate” at http://mensnewsdaily.com/wp/index.php?s=margaret+sanger.
When you read it, be sure to not blow a gasket. The truth is sometimes hard to handle.
In your latest Eva you say:
“Denis states that women have to choose between hostility from men and being treated preferentially or honest and fair treatment. That is the wrong approach.”
Eva, this is NOT a strategy per se. It wasn’t proposed as one either. I am not saying that the men’s movement is about creating (or “approach” as you say) a hostile world for women or anyone. What I am saying here is that women have been creating animosity within men towards women for 40+ years. Women are reaping what they have sown. Look around the culture.
Now anger by me is another thing. Men get insulted all the time. I really don’t give a damn if people can’t handle my tone. That’s their problem not mine.
I’m sure I’ll get around to having more to say in the future.
July 30, 2006 at 9:33 pm
dierdre said,
Second, men are angry about divorce law and custody policies. They should be angry. The divorce industry rewards women with no morals and revenge on their minds. On the other hand, the anger against these bad women is turned on all women and that isn’t fair.
All of this could be fixed very quickly. Let each party pay their own bills. No more alimony. However, child support and custody would be 50/50. Both parties would be on their best behavior to avoid more expense or legal hassle. They would both have to work together regularly until the child is grown. No more easy legal escapes or punitive judgments.
Lastly, both men and women need to stop being stupid about commitment. Guys need to stop cheating and women need to insist on a commitment before sex. I think a lot of relationship problems would go away if there weren’t so many ambigous situations. Okay, it sounds prudish, but men don’t need to go to strip clubs and women don’t need to stay “great friends” with ex-lovers.
Bring back traditional norms and all these other issues will become manageable. As things stand, men and women don’t trust each other. Things were simpler when they had to trust each other.
July 30, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Denis said,
dierdre-
until power is shifted back to men in Family Court to a degree that they have a stake in the family (rights and not just responsibilities)and women accept responsibilities (which necessarily will result in a loss of some rights) there will be a men versus women war. But women are gonna have to step up to the plate and accept this. Women your age generally do not. I’ve seen no evidence of lonely women speaking up. I’ve seen no evidence of the far more common slutty young American women of today speaking up about this.Today men have responsibilities and no rights. Women have rights and no responsibilities. Their word alone can destroy any man. No man can do this.
Likewise in the workplace. Affirmative Action has to go.
False accusations of sexual harrassment must be prosecuted with real penalties; at least as equal to the charge of sexual harrassment.
Equal protection and equal prosecution under the law. An adult man having sex with a 14 y/o will get him 15-20 years. An adult woman doing the same with a minor gets away with a relatively easy sentence. Equal application of the law for men and women in all areas of law.
Schools must treat boys and men fairly compared to girls and women.
The VAWA has to go. Laws must be put on the books regarding domestic violence by women.
In fact, a thorough screening of all law ought to be done eliminating all favoritism for women.
Men must be given advantages that women will not have if they are drafted into the military service. The advantages become greater if the man serves in combat.
Women will have to stop voting for Democrats who represent the leftist, socialist/communist elites you refer to. I’m not saying the Republicans are big friends of men-but the Republicans often do what is against the interest of men so as to appeal to women more than the Democrats. But deirdre-women, especially women in your age group, vote overwhelmingly Democratic. THEY are part of the problem as to why this gender war continues as long as they vote Democratic. The Democrats will have some power from this and the Republicans will keep trying to win over women (at the expense of the men). Women will have to choose between lonliness and hostility from men, (while being treated preferentially at the expense of men), or fair and honest treatment in all areas of life with men. If women en mass demand these things for men, the Democrats (leftists/socialists/communists/elites) will be finished and the Republicans will not have to screw over the men to compete with Democrats to get the women’s vote. Otherwise men will continue with this war.
Note: the complete and accurate comment within the above context:
“Women will have to choose between lonliness and hostility from men, (while being treated preferentially at the expense of men), or fair and honest treatment in all areas of life with men.”
July 30, 2006 at 10:49 pm
fourthwire said,
Denis, I agree with your arguments so consistently, that I am usually content simply to read yours.
In fact, this one single point you mention is the feminazis’ worst nightmare - a thorough screening of all law to eliminate favoritism toward women.
Interestingly, you are largely describing an Equal Rights Ammendment, and this time it would protect men’s rights and privileges than womens.
All of your other points are positively nuts-on, as you would put it.
This man thanks you for your eloquence and articulation of my outrage at the inequities and injustices that men face in this nation on a daily basis!
July 30, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Mjaybee said,
As for traditional marriage - the train has already left the station. Until laws are passed that don’t disproportionately strip men of assets in a divorce when the wife stays at home, traditional marriage is as dead as a doornail. Provide legal and financial incentives for men to accept this type of arrangement, and they will. Until then, forget it!
July 30, 2006 at 11:49 pm
fourthwire said,
Her point may seem logical to you, but doesn’t that legislation that harms men lump all men together as well?
Take IMBRA, as an example.
Thrown in as a last-minute addition to the VAWA legislation, IMBRA essentially treats ALL American men looking to marry foreign-born brides as potential domestic violence perpetrators.
It even requires American consulates awarding entry visas to those prospective wives to provide documentation in numerous languages with information about domestic violence, where to report it, etc.
That’s not logical…. and it’s damnably misandrist, but very, very few women seem outraged at that “lumping together” of men.
Men’s rights equality will come about NOT because most women will, against all odds, find enlightenment and succumb to an urge to suddenly give up their civil, social, and reproductive advantages,…………..
…………….or even suddenly develop consciences about men’s status as fourth-class citizens in their own nations.
Men’s rights equality will happen because growing numbers of men are distrusting, despising and disengaging from women, resulting in growing numbers of women being forced to fend for themselves, leading to adverse consequences for WOMEN.
And being the generally self-absorbed, egotistical creatures that most Western women are,………
…….if there’s any single motivation for women to act, it hinges on their collective realization that THEIR health, happiness, and well-being are threatened.
Whether or not they will admit it, the majority of women are like crack cocaine addicts as far as men are concerned: men’s financial support, men’s physical attributes, and men’s strength, among other things.
That’s why I laugh at those women who claim that they are “independent” but nonetheless collecting vaginamony or child support payments through those rackets.
And the growing public realization of men’s disengagement from women, including signs that greater numbers of younger women are experiencing their personal Westinghouse moments has feminazis grinding layers of enamel from their fangs.
Logic be damned, since it seems to be selectively applied to men and women …..
LET IT ALL COME DOWN.
July 31, 2006 at 1:21 am
zed said,
“This discussion could be so much simpler if we could agree on the basics. Such as: men want to be breadwinners and lead families. Women want to have committed relationships but want the freedom to work and have more than domestic servant status. Good for a start?”
Actually, no it isn’t.
First, you are doing the “lumping” of all men and all women into homogeneous groups which other posters have pointed out as counter-productive.
Second, there used to be a great deal more to the traditional male role than simply being the breadwinner. All those aspects have been systematically stripped from men until the legal obligation to be the breadwinner via the mechanism of child support is all that is left.
Third, your phrase “freedom to work” implies having the freedom to also not work. Few men today can make enough to support the expectations of a middle class life-style due to the dilution of wages which happened when women entered the workforce in massive numbers. Throw in Affirmative Action and all those women who exercise their “freedom to work” will be taking jobs which might support a family from those men who have to. Any marginally qualified woman will get a job for which there are many more qualified men applicants, simply to fill a quota.
Fourth, one of the biggest things which used to hold marriages together was the partners actually did NEED each other. Life was not all about “choice” which is nothing but a code word for massive privilege. For most of history, most people have actually had very few choices.
Men took on the breadwinner role because that was the male role. From birth, they were conditioned to believe that was their role in life, and there were lots of rewards for it - including having their domestic needs taken care of so that they could devote their full time, attention, and energy toward becoming successful at making money. A lot of men actually hated it, but they were not given that choice, that “freedom.”
Right now we are dealing with a couple of “straddle” generations - somewhere between the old roles and the new ones which will emerge as the scales get rebalanced. I know very few men today who either expect or want to be locked into the provider role, while “princess” sits at home and gets the freedom to work or not as suits her whim.
As fourthwire said -
“if there’s any single motivation for women to act, it hinges on their collective realization that THEIR health, happiness, and well-being are threatened.”
Women are going to have to be the ones who push for changes in the laws which make marriage and children less of a nightmare and enslavement for men, because they have been the ones pushing for the laws to trap men into conditions of servitude toward women. As several men here have observed, traditional marriage is dead - feminists killed it, while the majority of women stood by and said and did absolutely nothing about it.
As many women are finally starting to realize - the old male roles were a much worse deal for men and a much better deal for women than they realized. Having stripped out ALL the advantages for men, and built incredible privileges for women, more and more men are opting out - leaving women alone with their “satsifying careers” moving stacks of paper from one side of their desk to the other, and their cats.
Of course, eventually men and women will work out some new balance. But, in the meanwhile, a couple of generations of women will have lives characterized by either childless singlehood or single motherhood.
July 31, 2006 at 6:37 am
dierdre said,
100% of women are predatory and just want divorce settlements?
100% of men are innocent victims of physically violent women who are never prosecuted?
100% of women wake up every day singing the praises of feminism?
I really thought this was a news site where points could be discussed, but it is more like a disgruntled complaining board. You guys need to get out more; there are very good men and women getting by without constant political/social war.
I’ve never been part of a discussion in which when I agree with the other posters, they denounce me for who I am. I think perhaps decent women need to take a pass on the gender wars until you men sort it out with the Grrrrrls.
Maybe you guys are alone and unhappy, but it astonishes me that you cannot even conceptualize the idea that maybe there are some good women alone and unhappy as well; women who don’t believe in feminism. We exist! We aren’t just time-travelling 1950s housewives! There are some women who aren’t out to get every man we can destroy.
I’m out of this discussion, but I do wish everyone well and hope some reality comes back into the debate.
July 31, 2006 at 7:16 am
zed said,
“I think I understand the rules of the debate now. Sorry I didn’t pick up on it earlier. Women bad, men good. Is that about all?”
How in the world you got that from my comments would be a mystery to me if it were not such a classic method of trying to shut off debate with the old “y’all just hate women” canard.
You attempted to set the terms of the debate with us all “just agreeing on basics” which you stipulated. I said “no, in fact I do not agree” and went on to give 4 relatively straightforward points about why I didn’t. And that is “all women bad, all men good”?
This fallacy of the excluded middle is worn out as a tactic - if less than absolutely 100% of women don’t fit what a man is saying, then he can’t talk about it at all - is that your rule for the terms of the debate? Are you really going to try to deny that gold-diggers do, in fact, exist? Or that women do, in fact, lie about things like rape?
Men are basing their opinions of women on personal experience - what they see around them every day. It is just about impossible to have a conversation with a woman these days which lasts more than a few minutes without her feeling the need to work in some way of trashing men. They seek us out to bash us. Just this last week I got an email from a woman about “community college courses for men”. On the list was “filling ice trays 101.” Recently I heard a woman say she was looking for a RealMan(tm)and I asked her what that meant. On her fairly long list was “Knows how to use a telephone.” If a man has different priorities than a woman, it is not considered just a difference, as in the old “viva la difference”, but because men are stupid and don’t know how to do it.
Not long ago I was having dinner with some friends and one of their guests was a single woman in her late 40s. At one point in the evening, she made the comment that she had not had a date in 7 years. A little while later the conversation to pets, and this same woman just had to say “Well, an animal is better than ANY man!” Now, I had been very pleasant and congenial all evening and had given her absolutely no reason to bash me for my sex, but it seems to have become compulsive among women.
As far as I am concerned, “good” women can just sit out of the game. Saying hello to them and finding them attractive is now “sexual harassment”, and should I be lucky enough to dodge that bullet and an actual relationship ensue, then every act of sex becomes a potential rape charge if she either decides after the fact that she wasn’t in the mood, or even decides in the middle of the act and says something like “I should be going now” and I don’t withdraw within 15 seconds.
As long as every discussion of the unbelievably lopsided treatment of men and women in this culture is always boiled down to “you are just angry guys who hate all women” there will be no dialogue. As long as men can say nothing about women unless they can prove conclusively that absolutely 100% of all women are “like that”, there will be no dialogue.
The men have left the building, because we refuse to participate as long as we are shut out of the dialogue and silenced. And, if refusing to accept a woman dictating the terms of the debate and telling me what I want is “all men good, all women bad”, then so be it.
July 31, 2006 at 8:15 am
Denis said,
The numbers are not so small anymore and since the 70s have continued to grow. Campus’ across America still have a large and vocal feminist population. Many younger women still vote consistently Democratic specifically because of “women’s issues”. Often they form views during college years and carry them for years after. It is long past when “women’s issues” were about equality. Today, and for a considerable time (decades) “womens issues” are more about just getting more. The idea about equality necessarily requires those who view themselves as “catching up” in regards to equality, have to one day give it a rest. We are way past the cross-over point of what could be called equality and into the realm of women hitting their stride and getting anything they want simply by speaking up. The VAWA is just one example of how democracy does not work in this country for men. Sen. Joseph Biden closed the door on democracy for men. Women overwhelmingly vote Biden in. Look around the Democratic Party. Women are their single most important special interest group. Everyone else gets thrown off that plantation if need be, except the women. Look at California. Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Look at Democratic office holders everywhere. They are pimping for women all the time.
I’m no lackey for the Republican’s because they too are not good friends of men as history proves. But taking the consistently Democratic segment of the young women’s vote and moving it over to the Republicans takes away one of the legs of the Democratic Party and eliminates the need for weasly Republicans to sell out the men again just to attrack younger Democratic women. Those that think that will happen anytime soon-please raise your hand.
Like I have said, a small group of man-haters got a lot passed for women. And it continues 40 years later. 40 years. But women would have been better to ignore their opportunities for abusing men that their “equal rights” provided.
You just have to look at the seething anger among men here to see what women have brought about. I can assure you I have heard it elsewhere and most likely the other men here will tell you the same thing.
Men find it difficult, and many impossible, to trust women. Letting women into The Brotherhood may result in OUR issues morphing into women’s issues once again. This time around men are being stubborn about getting THEIR point across. Blame feminism and endless endless male bashing for that. We don’t want to be Charlie Brown falling on our asses anymore just because Lucy promised to behave. Maybe some women do want to do the right thing. But 40 years of wreckage on men by a small group of women just won’t pass the smell test anymore. It’s difficult to see who really can be trusted after all this time.
Is this sad? Yes it is. But really, men were listening when women were complaining decades ago. Now we are simply tired of it all. We just don’t want to hear about women’s issues anymore. Not even one more time.
July 31, 2006 at 8:52 am
Denis said,
Should have been more precisely stated as (to make my message consistent throughout:
But 40 years of wreckage on men by a so-called “small group” of women just won’t pass the smell test anymore. It’s not so small anymore.
July 31, 2006 at 9:01 am
Mjaybee said,
Are you here to piss and moan, or do you actually want to do something to change the sorry state of affairs in the legal system.
Quit crying in your beers and take advantage of a woman’s offer to help the debate move on to the next level.
You’re the men’s movement’s worst enemy - passive and self-pitying. The next time someone wants to substantively discuss these issues, take a deep breath and see what they’re actually trying to say.
July 31, 2006 at 12:13 pm
admin said,
This rule is not negotiable.
Mike
July 31, 2006 at 12:52 pm
zed said,
July 31, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Denis said,
Is that the “Go Grrl!” team?
Spare us your arrogance.
Crying in our beers???
Again spare us your arrogance. You like so many women show up here to lecture us and talk down to us from your position of supeiority in all things.
Don’t even bother to presume to know me.
Passive and self-pitying?
You just don’t get it.
Yet another woman who brings nothing but the ability to create ever more disgust of American women by men. Unless we get it your way the discussion goes downhill. It’s no wonder contempt by men is at an all time high.
July 31, 2006 at 1:20 pm
zed said,
“You just lost yourselves a valuable ally from the winning team.”
What specifically did that team “win”? The right to work their entire lives without someone else to support them or share the load? The right to be distrusted by a large percentage of the opposite sex? The right to be avoided?
You, yourself, said that marriage is dead.
It rather seems to me that all the “winning team” “won: might best be described as the “dummy prize.”
As far as changing the “sorry state of affairs in the legal system”… well, I fought for years to try to keep things from getting that sorry, and lost every inch of the way. But, I adapted as the laws changed and it actually isn’t all that burdensome to live within the laws as they currently exist. Nor is changing them back going to benefit me all that much - so, while it would be nice, it is not of any life or death significance to me. I have avoided the worst consequences by assuming that the worst was possible, and that has paid off for me in avoiding what I have seen happen to so many of my men friends.
As you said above - “Provide legal and financial incentives for men to accept this type of arrangement, and they will. Until then, forget it!”
I would add “social and interpersonal incentives” to that list as well.
I actually agree with Eva’s original assertion that “The Boy Problem in Education is the Nation’s Problem”. A hundred years ago few men had all that much of an education, and they found ways to get by. I think the current crop of boys will end up being every bit as resourceful.
What they won’t do is support women, or contribute much to the culture. So, in addition to it being the nation’s problem, I see it as women’s problem to find a way to solve.
July 31, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Denis said,
fourthwire-I got your messages along the way and appreciate your positive feedback. Excellent posts and thanks.
July 31, 2006 at 2:32 pm
fourthwire said,
Here’s a newsflash for you, Mjaybee:
“valuable allies” show COMMITMENT to those individuals and organizations that they have chosen to support.
“Allies” that have no intentions or capability of KEEPING their commitments provide little or no value.
It’s noteworthy that a number of women claim to be supporters of men’s rights issues on this forum who abandon their pretense to “alliance” in a huff when men posting here disagree with their opinions or observations.
That’s why I am relatively certain that:
“Men’s rights equality will come about NOT because most women will, against all odds, find enlightenment and succumb to an urge to suddenly give up their civil, social, and reproductive advantages,…………
……………or even suddenly develop consciences about men’s status as fourth-class citizens in their own nations.
Men’s rights equality will happen because growing numbers of men are distrusting, despising and disengaging from women, resulting in growing numbers of women being forced to fend for themselves, leading to adverse consequences for WOMEN.
And being the generally self-absorbed, egotistical creatures that most Western women are,………
……if there is any single motivation for women to act, it hinges on their collective realization that THEIR health, happiness, and well-being are threatened.”
Good women DO exist, beyond a doubt, but change to the status quo will only happen when the foul spawn of feminism comes home to roost among them.
July 31, 2006 at 2:32 pm
fourthwire said,
This rule is not negotiable.”
Mike, I am likely to be as uncivil an individual as mensnewsdaily.com bloggers and posters have experienced in recent months, so I will be happy to take the rap, so to speak.
Darned if I wasn’t on my best behavior, posting on this particular board, though.
No disrespect toward the admin intended, of course.
Just a bit of mild amusement amid the confusion resulting from your warning…
July 31, 2006 at 2:44 pm
admin said,
This will not do at all. Just fair warning.
Mike
July 31, 2006 at 2:52 pm
emarel said,
Masculine eloquence.
Thanks.
July 31, 2006 at 6:44 pm
PolishKnight said,
First, I like Eva’s post (no, don’t make kissy kissy sounds) I don’t agree with everything she writes as will become clear in the second paragraph but she doesn’t write with a smug, condescending tone either. She also appears to be listening to the points we’re making. At the same time… I don’t think this has gotten too nasty or flamey. I see a lot of emotion in some of the comments but nothing too hateful or personal. Check out some of Amy’s stuff…
That said, I appreciate Eva writing her perspective and will comment from how I see it rationally. Men get the impression that American women in general are VERY dedicated to “feminism” or viewing themselves as women and protecting entitlements moreso than concern for men in their lives including their sons, fathers, and brothers. They may defend entitlements in divorce with rationalizations such as women “sacrificing” their careers (even if they know the woman twisted the man’s arm to let her quit and stay at home) or making men pay for meals through etiquette games or attacking men’s manhood if they comment negatively on women’s rights.
Men respond to this by becoming collaborators and worrying that if they don’t attack a man getting out of line then they’ll be rejected and disliked by women. Not just their wives but also their mothers or girlfriends. I tried this with men by saying I don’t think women should be allowed to vote and the men get this worried, panicked look on their face. They are terrified (perhaps rightly so) that their wife will divorce them or their mothers disown them if they express dissent with “traditional” feminist orthodoxy.
So yes, while it’s entirely fair to argue that women were just going along with the goodie gravy train that was run by radical feminists and marxist or chivalrous men, they did participate in perpetuating anti-male attitudes. I don’t blame them as human beings but this is part of the culture. Women and men are trained from a young age to hate men.
That said, I think men deserve some blame for this. Chivalrous men are in government and positions of power and men as a group continue to meekly go along and help perpetuate the system. If enough of them stopped supporting it, it would be over in seconds. In many ways, this is already happening as submissive men are being ground up by the system. Amy smugly declared that men shouldn’t trust women if they have half a brain. This is how the system NOW works and it’s only a matter of time before it produces results.
I hope that rational men will come out on top rather than those who are products of both our leftist system which has sought to embrace non-western values (which are hardly helpful to the liberation of women) or radicals. It’s difficult to say since we’re at a tipping point in history where these issues are gaining consciousness in average men. By the time things get going, who knows? Maybe these men will put things aright as best as they can. But certainly, just as women helped to perpetuate gravy train goodies for women they should probably pro-actively help dismantle them before they become a huge albatross.
July 31, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Denis said,
Why are men so angry?
One of the most common men’s issues I see discussed on NGs is men’s anger. Everybody is obsessing about men’s anger, characterizing it as uniting force among men - “male” anger, telling men how to manage it, and express it and suppress it.
What no one is doing is acknowledging WHAT IT IS that men are getting angry about. And every time some man brings up all the man bashing in the culture, or how shittily men are treated, everybody tries to “hush him up”, so he gets angrier and keeps getting angrier until he feels like he has been HEARD or SEEN JUST AS HE IS. Instead, he keeps getting told how he “should” be and, even when the prescription is impossible or completely nuts, having people ANGRY AT him for living a life of reality rather than their fantasies of what they want him to be.
The anger you see in a man is directly proportional to the anger which he has absorbed over the years. Letting that anger out is essential to ever being able to let go of it and leave it behind. But it is very takes a very long time to learn how to be focussed and articulate with anger. It is a mature skill and takes lots of practice. It is something older men could teach younger men, except that younger men distrust older men these days.
Men are expressing a lot of anger these days. It comes from 25 years of having their collective character assassinated in the public consciousness. Men have been turned into criminals for trying to be good fathers. Everything has been turned upside down for them. Where they expected recognition and appreciation, they received blame and hatred.
The extent of men’s anger can easily be seen in their withdrawal, not their violence. Boys are bailing out of schools because the schools hate boys so much. Men of all ages are quietly going against the impossible demands and expectations placed on them. Silencing them did not immobilize them and they have found ways to express that anger even if they couldn’t win a semantic word game about how they expressed it vocally. They are expressing it by their absence.
The men still arguing with women are the ones still trying to reach understanding. They are the ones who still believe in women. The rest have quit talking to women completely. Or rather, they have quit listening to women while they rag on incessantly.
Anger is a natural reaction to a feeling of being attacked. Anyone who doesn’t see how men are under attack every day just isn’t looking. The cultural role and contributions of men have been “deconstructed” into rubble during the course of the past 30 years. Men have been tarred with the broad brush of “the enemy” and women have refused to let men be their allies. Everything men do has been under attack, and people still wonder why men are so angry. No one ever acknowledges that the culture decimates any man who quits doing that which the culture also ridicules them for doing.
The notion of benign intentions on the part of men has been replaced by universal suspicion of malice. The very valuable social asset of a reputation has been destroyed culture wide. The social fracturing which has resulted in migration of large percentages of the population into urban areas makes it harder to get to know people individually and leads directly to the formation and use of stereotypes. Social transgressions like lying, which would reflect so badly on an entire family with long standing social ties that the individual lives with an awareness that his/her actions can harm other people indirectly, go undetected when the only thing that people know of each other is what they see in front of them. The entire notion of internal controls of behavior, what one might call a sense of ethics, has been discredited by radical feminist theory.
Thus we have moved into an era where there are no ethics, no internalized cultural controls and substituted an massive snarl of government regulations and the much touted RULE of LAW. Except the laws are so incredibly biased against men that men have lost faith in the both the justice system and the government.
And when a man expresses anger about any of this, he is essentially told to shut up.
The more trapped a man is in situations which are eating him alive, the angrier he will be. The more verbal abuse and criticism he takes for his efforts, the angrier he will be. The more he has had his own needs used to manipulate and exploit him, the angrier he will be. The more condesending bullshit he has had to put up with from women, the angrier he will be.
The key to resolving the anger which comes from being under attack is to take oneself out of the line of fire, if possible. If you are not called upon to do battle several times per day, over time the battle reflex will die away. All the arguing with women is counter-productive in two ways. First, it just keeps the frustration level high because the arguments fall into such stereotyped patterns. Second, it reinforces the stereotype of angry men which women already have.
A better solution is turning one’s back on the source of the anger. Anger is like an animal that needs to be fed. It is far easier than most people realize to starve it to death. At a certain point of not being heard, it is best to unhook from the attempt and accept the fact that this other person is simply never going to accept the truth about you. Cut that person loose immediately.
This is not to say don’t speak out. When someone says or does something incredibly offensive to you, point it out and point out how obnoxious it was. DON’T get into an argument over the other person’s “right” to have done it. They will always feel righteously justified in their bigotry.
But, speak out and then turn your back. Don’t waste your time on these people.
Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time. And it ANNOYS the pig.
So there you have it. I for one will do more “turning my back” on the female trolls who come here and add nothing substantive and germaine to the discussion, and instead display the common traits we have all become so familiar with on an almost daily basis, year in and year out.
July 31, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Denis said,
One more from zenpriest:
To all women: The lot of you can go to hell.
Amidst all the lies, gnashing of teeth, blame and counter-blame of the gender war, one simple fact remains - men’s participation in the culture is voluntary. While a huge body of laws exists to enumerate the things we are prohibited from doing, only a few exist which require us to *do* something. The voluntary and enthusiastic participation of men in this culture is one of the reasons for the vitality it once had. It has taken a long time to beat down the spirits of men who would still love to participate and contribute, but the unrelenting war against men waged by the feminists for the past 35 years has finally managed to do so.
As all the dog-faces, grunts, and foot-soldiers in any war know, the generals will keep throwing men’s bodies to be blown apart long after it has become clear that the battle is lost and the war cannot be won. Everyone has lost this stupid war waged and declared by spoiled, indulged, and not-very-bright children against the very people who spoiled and indulged them.
Far from the mythical “backlash” that the paranoid hate-mongers have used to breathe one last breath of life into their movement of error, the real counter-attack is that men have begun to back OFF. The boomer generation is now past the point where the biological imperative to continue the species drives men to seek out women and court their favor. The relentless exploitation of women’s built-in power which they inherit with their physiology has left an entire generation of men at middle age with no reason whatsoever to think the least bit kindly toward women, and even less reason to seek them out. Forced to adapt to lifestyles without women, against their wishes, many men have managed to do so and found an unexpected freedom in the priestly lifestyle.
No longer forced to sell themselves into wage slavery in order to support the consuming habits of the bottomless pits that women have become, these men are free in a way that no group of people has ever been: they can participate in the culture, or not, as they choose. Freed from the relentless exploitation of them to extract the $$$ that they buy with hours of their lives in order to feed the vast cancer of unlimited consumption, these men gain back the only thing that is truly theirs to begin with: the hours of their lives.
These men are deserters from the gender war.
Like all deserters in all wars, however, they do not advertise themselves - for to do so would simply make them targets. Quite the opposite, these men go out of their way to make themselves invisible. Far from there being “no good men” as women have been bitching about for years, there are millions of ethical and committed men living their lives without women and refusing to have anything to do with them. There are more never-married men over the age of 40 in the US than the entire population of New Zealand. The number of never-married men in their 30s has more than doubled in the past decade. The percentage of men who have never been married has risen from 25% in 1960 to 31% in 1996. The percentage of men who are single has risen steadily from 31% in 1960 to 42% in 1996. If this were all due to the choices of women, then why have we heard for the past 20 years the uninterrupted laments of women that “men won’t make commitments.”
As Abe Lincoln observed, you can fool some of the men all of the time, and all of the men some of the time, but you cannot fool *all* of the men *all* of the time. With fatherhood and the simple fact of finding a woman attractive and letting her know about it effectively criminalized by Sexual Harassment, Rape, and anti-male-biased Domestic Violence laws, men who are by nature law-abiding are honoring those laws and giving women as wide a berth as possible. Since they don’t want to do the time, they aren’t doing the crime.
After hearing from women for years about all the things they aren’t going to do for men any more, and adding up all the demands for “more” from women, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that a lot of men simply can’t afford the luxury of a woman, and have opted for a simpler, more spartan lifestyle. Women have made themselves into the Edsels of the new millenium: overpriced luxury products that no one wants.
The legacy of hate sown by the infantile tantrums of women as they embraced their newly discovered history-long victimhood will linger in the culture for decades, poisoning the wells of relationships that they would like to drink from. Having tasted the bitter tainted alkali water of the self-obsessed modern woman, men are moving on to new territory and leaving women behind. All the books about the “plight” of men which seem to be the fad right now, 1999, cannot convince those who have achieved it that a life without women in it is not far preferable to one with them. We have not seemed to be able to stop the hate in more than 3 decades, so it has come time to move away from it.
You can take your demands, and your bashing, and your lies about us, and your hallucinations of a world-wide and history-long conspiracy of men spending every waking moment thinking up nasty things to do to you called “Patriarchy”, and all your petty and insignificant complaints about toilet seats and asking for directions, and wrap them all up together and go to hell with them and rot and burn there.
July 31, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Mjaybee said,
July 31, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Hal said,
Amen. If you lump all women into the NOW/nazi category, what’s the point of continuing?
August 1, 2006 at 5:05 am
chas said,
Anger is the right response to what is being done to men. There is no reason to stop being angry. Anger is what reminds someone like me who absolutely believes in marriage, to tell my sons don’t get married. American women will turn your greatest blessing into your greatest disappointment.
August 1, 2006 at 8:27 am
Denis said,
If Eva is half the writer I think she is (that’s a compliment for those who have trouble seeing),
then she will not take offense to what others are saying and instead will look at these with an open mind. The comments are largely replies to her own replies found in her “Response to Readers’ Comments” column. The fact that Eva even bothered to put this column together suggests to me that she is capable of having a fair and open mind, and even capable of changing or adding to how she looks at subjects. I hope she will, in an honest way, look fairly at the commentary, even if fellow posters cannot. I think Eva is smart enough to not distill everything here that has been written down to a “lump all women into the NOW/nazi category” write-off, (which necessarily means dismissing most of it) but will condier these “food for thought”. Thanks Eva for the columns.
August 1, 2006 at 8:38 am
zed said,
“So much for strategy and planning on how to change the situation…..”
One normally might expect those most harmed by the situation to be the ones most motivated to try to change it. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case here. Otherwise, honest discussion of causes would be welcomed instead of silenced.
August 1, 2006 at 8:46 am
Scott66 said,
You do not need men’s support in order for YOU to do the right thing!
Here is a great place to start, http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/31/now-at-40-groups-opposition-to-shared-parenting/
The National Organization of Women is continuing their efforts to deny men our fundamental human right to be actively involved in our children’s lives and their doing it in your name! Why don’t you put a stop to it. We men won’t be much help as there is no way they will listen to us. After you get NOW back to promoting gender equality and not special rights for women I am sure you will get a warm welcome and many thanks from men.
August 1, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Mjaybee said,
When I got divorced I got thrown out of two men’s groups because I pointed out that sitting around and bitching wasn’t going to make anything better, and I’d rather do that at the corner bar, if I had the time. I wanted advice on legal strategy, some data on local judges and their biases, etc. and all I got was either effeminate pseudo psychotherapy or encouragement to express my anger - neither of which improved anything.
So get off your asses and help Glenn Sacks, et al, change the climate in the legislature, instead of ranting about “the bitches”.
DO something productive with your anger - channel it in a good way. Ranting ad nauseum about “all women”, etc. isn’t going to change anything.
August 1, 2006 at 2:47 pm
christianj said,
It is that women are responsible and are to be held accountable, period.
They are responsible for what is going on and they are the ones that continually feed or are you deaf as well as blind. You can see and hear it daily, everywhere you go.
Yet, any male that dares to criticise the “Privileged Princess” is automtically slated as either “you hate women” or it’s “I am not a feminist” or worse still, we have males standing up for women once again regardless of the hate they have generated.
Until this ignorance or denial on part of the males is overcome, we will see very little change to the current situation.
Blame has to be put on the sex that has generated this anti-male attitude and male-hate for the last 40 years.
August 1, 2006 at 3:35 pm
admin said,
You are welcome to post provided that your posts contain some element that advances the overall conversation. If you truly reflect on what you are about to say, you may find that it is best to say nothing at all. Let’s take an example from your post in which you indicate some knowledge of “what women are really about…”
I reject the very premise of this concept, therefore the rest of the argument can have little to no merit.
Let’s replace the noun:
“what men are really about…”
“what Blacks are really about…”
“what Whites are really about…”
“what Australians are really about…”
“what frogs are really about…”
“what dogs are really about…”
Everyone here needs an “education” of some sort or another - me included. All I ask is that contributors refrain from generalizations that diminish someone’s value because of what they are, not who they are.
In short, get off my cloud.
August 1, 2006 at 4:43 pm
PolishKnight said,
Wouldn’t the above count as a rant? Why doesn’t _he_ start a foundation or contribute time to the cause rather than whine about, well, other people whining. Do you have tips for us? Did you find anything out?
It’s called leadership. If you aren’t leading, then you’re even worse than the whiners you just ranted against.
August 1, 2006 at 6:26 pm
zed said,
Once you are in it, going to other people who have been caught in it and demanding answers on how to beat it may not get you anything because there may be no answers - and if there were and they had them, then they wouldn’t be there either.
As comment #61 in response to this article http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/28/menforjusticenet/#comments points out, marriage has effectively been criminalized. The most basic jailhouse axiom is “if you don’t want to do the time, then don’t do the crime.” If you have done the crime, then even Johnny Cochran can’t guarantee to be able to get you off.
August 1, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Denis said,
I personally have written politicians, newspapers, and corporations that use male-bashing advertisement. I am not Ghandi but I’m doing something. How about you Mjaybee?
August 1, 2006 at 8:11 pm
RScott said,
It is unfortunate to see Dierdre depart from the thread. I do see the value in the discussion, but then I’m able to see through the anger that often must be filtered to understand the concerns of the various posters. I do think people need to understand that it is not practical to want to “return” to a pre-feminist culture or legal system. It simply can’t happen anymore than we can go back in time; we must forge ahead into some form of actual equality to have any hope of recovering from the current disaster that befalls relationships between men and women.
Dierdre sees nothing wrong with a man producing the income while the wife is a homemaker and mother. While I agree with her, the law does not. In 2001, Colorado passed a law (Senate Bill 01-158, sponsored by Democratic State Senator Pat Pascoe) that created a sliding scale of payment, from one spouse to the other, immediately upon separation of the married couple. The formula produces a 40 percent of gross pay payment from the working spouse to the non-working spouse, with the amount of the payment gradually reduced to zero in the situation where both work and have equal incomes (assuming no children). Colorado is also a unilateral divorce state, so the last opportunity anyone has to avoid this legal entanglement, and transfer of their income to another person, is the decision to marry. Indirectly, this law criminalizes marriage itself, since any decision beyond the marriage decision, such as whether to work, whether to divorce, whether to even produce a child, is a unilateral decision of one person only. If you don’t want to be subject to the state’s penalties, then don’t get “married” according to the state’s definition. This law also makes a few other things very clear: if you are married, and have children, you damn well better put them into daycare as opposed to having one of the parents care for them. No fault, unilateral divorce was bad enough without the state creating direct financial incentives for divorce. Colorado is one of those states that has made the traditional marriage a crime. While not calling it a crime directly, anytime the state or justice system creates severe penalties for an action (in this case marriage), then they are trying to reduce or eliminate the activity by treating it as a crime. What few people will admit, especially the radical statists on the Left, is that these laws are the ultimate in interference in people’s private lives and personal decisions. They rant about the state getting “into people’s bedrooms” while advocating maximum interference in people’s activities in their bedrooms! It’s all about control and eliminating individual decisions of free people.
August 1, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Mjaybee said,
Usually when a critical bill needs calls, emails, etc. to Sacramento ( I am in California ), I call, email, etc. in support of that bill, and urge a network of about 75 single and divorced guys to do the same. BTW, my divorce attorney usually sides with me on these bills - she is a woman.
I also have a network of friends, many single fathers like myself, who spread the word about the many legal pitfalls of marriage in this state to any guy we know who is about to get or who is already engaged. We’ve stopped at least five or six guys from going down that road in the past year or so.
This may not seem like much, but what if every single guy did this in the county? Sure would make a lot of difference eventually
August 1, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Mjaybee said,
Usually when a critical bill needs calls, emails, etc. to Sacramento ( I am in California ), I call, email, etc. in support of that bill, and urge a network of about 75 single and divorced guys to do the same. BTW, my divorce attorney usually sides with me on these bills - she is a woman.
I also have a network of friends, many single fathers like myself, who spread the word about the many legal pitfalls of marriage in this state to any guy we know who is about to get or who is already engaged. We’ve stopped at least five or six guys from going down that road in the past year or so.
This may not seem like much, but what if every single guy did this in the county? Sure would make a lot of difference eventually, if only in terms of volume, but you have to start somewhere.
And such a groundswell of change would have a lot more strength and credibility if it came from both men AND women. Otherwise, it would be very easy to dismiss as reactionary “sexism” by the feminist-leaning legal industry lobbyists.
By stamping all women with the same label, you weaken the only movement that can initiate any change in the system, and that is a big mistake.
August 1, 2006 at 10:24 pm
The Gonzman said,
100% of women are predatory and just want divorce settlements?
100% of men are innocent victims of physically violent women who are never prosecuted?
100% of women wake up every day singing the praises of feminism?
Since that is what you choose to want to see, then I guess, yes. And I suppose the next time you see the male hitch-hiker, and with nobody else in the car, you’ll be picking him up, because, yanno, otherwise you’ll be blaming 100% of the men for…
Yeah. It does sound a bit stupid, doesn’t it?
I really thought this was a news site where points could be discussed, but it is more like a disgruntled complaining board. You guys need to get out more; there are very good men and women getting by without constant political/social war.
I see. Don’t complain, don’t be angry, don’t point out what a crock of shit things are, don’t agitate for change, and it will all be peachy keen? Did I miss anything?
I’ve never been part of a discussion in which when I agree with the other posters, they denounce me for who I am. I think perhaps decent women need to take a pass on the gender wars until you men sort it out with the Grrrrrls.
Well, why not? You kind sat it out while the “grrls” were busy giving it to us in the keister, and giggling over your latest man-bashing card, and taking the affirmative action pass that put a better qualified man out in the cold, so why the hell change now?
You seem to forget the old saying which can be paraphrased that “The only thing which made the success of evil women possible was the inaction of so-called good women.” But of course, you own no responsibility for it, do you. You never explicitly gave your approval, you were just waiting for us to “help ourselves.”
So - what is the difference? There ya go, toots. You have your excuse to continue your inaction, and your excuse to - once again - blame it on those darn men.
Wake up, guys. You just lost yourselves a valuable ally from the winning team.
No, we didn’t. We just weeded out another fair weather friend who would only be on board so long as it didn’t get dirty, and she didn’t chip the polish on her nails.
Women whyo are offended at the anger of men would do very well to sit back and consider their role in creating this situation by sitting back and doing nothing while all this was implemented. Yes, you helped when you let these poisonous femherroids speak for you without contradiction, and yes you helped when you reaped the benefits without feeling a lick of guilt over it, until what you had was secure.
You have culpability in this, and a good deal of this anger that gives you the vapors is richly deserved, and should be considered a penance. When I start seeing more than a scant few of you - and Glenn Sack’s famous list is still at less than a hundred, and most of them pretty obscure - sprouting a pair of ovaries, speaking up to these feministas and telling them to sit down and shut up, then I will take American Womanhood serious as wanting to correct the problem.
We’re disenfranchised from our families. We’re estranged from our children. It is done with the blessing of the law, and at the behest of women who claim to speak for all women, and whom the very very vast and very very overwhelming majority of women have not said a peep about this claim. And it has pissed us off.
Oh, and…
Guys need to stop cheating
It’s not us commiting paternity fraud, Deidre, and then hiding behind those children in an attempt to continue that defrauding. And just who are “all those guys” cheating with, anyway?
I guess it’s okay for you to blame 100% of the population.
August 1, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Mjaybee said,
If you have a problem with someone who would rather get out of his chair and try to change a shitty situation than sit on his ass whining, then I guess this isn’t the place for me.
Hope you folks can get it together to actually make a difference.
August 1, 2006 at 10:50 pm
fourthwire said,
I don’t doubt it for a moment……….
……..and with any luck, “someone” will manage to dislodge it before you suffocate, mjaybee.
That’s just my opinion, based on the quality and content of your posts on this forum.
“If you have a problem with someone who would rather get out of his chair and try to change a shitty situation than sit on his ass whining, then I guess this isn’t the place for me.”
Ever hear the phrase, “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”…?
With respect to:
- sharing their observations, information, and passions about men’s rights infractions and issues
- not to mention communicating, articulating, and educating others about the nature of feminism, and the injustices that men face daily, MEN like Denis, the Gonzman, Dave Usher, and others LEAD.
Men like myself and others occasionally lead, but mostly FOLLOW as part of the learning process about men’s rights issues.
I try to show my appreciation for the postings by the above-mentioned MEN and the countless others not mentioned, and those bloggers featured on this site, together with relevant news stories shown on it.
I have learned much from those MEN, and continue to learn more every day.
And you, mjaybee…… you apparently are getting yourself the hell out of the way, in the context of participation on this forum.
“Hope you folks can get it together to actually make a difference.”
Thanks for your best wishes, mjaybee.
Best of luck with your lobbying and networking regarding men’s rights issues here in California.
Hope that you can get it together yourself.
August 2, 2006 at 2:18 am
zed said,
Mjaybee said,
“I am doing something about the situation.
Usually when a critical bill needs calls, emails, etc. to Sacramento ( I am in California ), I call, email, etc. in support of that bill, and urge a network of about 75 single and divorced guys to do the same. BTW, my divorce attorney usually sides with me on these bills - she is a woman.
I also have a network of friends, many single fathers like myself, who spread the word about the many legal pitfalls of marriage in this state to any guy we know who is about to get or who is already engaged. We’ve stopped at least five or six guys from going down that road in the past year or so.
This may not seem like much, but what if every single guy did this in the county? Sure would make a lot of difference eventually, if only in terms of volume, but you have to start somewhere.”
So, you are just doing the same thing many of the rest of us are doing, in addition to spreading the message on the internet which reaches a lot more young men than a personal network - “don’t get married.”
But, wait, if we do that we are saying that 100% of all women are predatory gold diggers just looking for divorce settlements.
“And such a groundswell of change would have a lot more strength and credibility if it came from both men AND women. Otherwise, it would be very easy to dismiss as reactionary “sexism” by the feminist-leaning legal industry lobbyists.”
If such a groundswell of demand for change was likely to come from women, it would have shown up long before now. Everything men have done for the past 40 years has been dismissed as “reactionary sexism” by the feminists and everything women have done in men’s behalf has been dismissed as “internalizing their own oppression.” Getting a few women on board who are so fragile that they bolt at the first mention of a dirty word requires walking on eggshells so much that it will take all the punch out of the message.
“By stamping all women with the same label, you weaken the only movement that can initiate any change in the system, and that is a big mistake.”
Yeah, stamping all men with the same label has certainly rendered the feminazi’s blitkrieg totally ineffective - NOT! Yeah, everytime some smug femnoid announced “all men are pigs” women by the thousands stood up and booed her and shouted her down - NOT! Yeah, when they started doping boys in schools to make them more docile, mothers rose up en masse to say “you will not drug my boy” - NOT!
Women haven’t done squat about this, and the best predicter of future behavior is past behavior - they are highly unlikely to do squat about it in the future, no matter how many satin pillows some men want to carry them around on.
They will begin to do something about it when they can no longer find husbands, and when they get the consistent message from men “well, if you want men to start getting married again, then get the legislatures to de-criminialize it.”
I’ve been doing everthing you are doing since the 70s, trying to keep things from getting this bad. It is usually a whole lot easier to put out a fire when it is small than when the whole damn house is in flames. I tried to enlist women as allies then, and always got dismissed as a reactionary sexist, because, don’chaknow “not all women are like that.”
Personally, I really don’t need to do anything about the situation, because I paid attention to the warning signs and kept from getting caught in the machine. I’ve been pointing out those same warning signs to ot