Kicking Men Down Under
In mid-October, I wrote “CBS Profits from Dumb Dads,” in reaction to yet another pathetic display of paternal impotence on a network-television sitcom. A week later, I was a guest on a San Antonio radio station, debating a misguided female psychologist in denial about the negative portrayal of men in the American media.
It turns out that institutionalized misandry is not unique to the United States; it is as bad or worse in Australia. In fact, we see a growing trend, in Western-oriented democracies, of the media, and consequently family courts, kicking men “down under” — literally, figuratively, and geographically.
An eye-popping article appeared today in The Sydney Morning Herald, based on the doctoral thesis of James R. Macnamara, about the vilification of men in Australian media. In writing his treatise, “Representations of Men and Male Identities in Australian Mass Media,” Dr. Macnamara, affiliated with the University of Western Sydney, studied more than 2000 articles and TV stories about men, over the span of a year. His research demonstrates, starkly, that men are commonly represented as insensitive, stupid, or incompetent.
According to Macnamara: “Out of 100 stories about fatherhood in the nation’s six most-popular newspapers and magazines, only one was written by a man. Many did not even quote a man. When men were portrayed positively — in shows such as Queer Eye For a Straight Guy — it was often because they had “embraced their feminine side.” MacNamara said this anti-male bias further demonized men by reinforcing feminine traits as positive and masculine ones as negative.
There’s nothing new here, except that James Macnamara did a brilliant job of quantifying the problem in Oz. The question remains, therefore, Why and how is misandry growing?
It is happening because men are allowing it to happen. Why don’t men fight back? Why? This is the fundamental question! I believe that so many males are raised in homes that diminish fathers (e.g., the number-one day for collect calls is Fathers’ Day) and worship mothers, that boys grow up feeling insecure and self-loathing. This was bad enough in times when there were fathers in the homes. Nowadays, a father in the home is a rarity — providing more opportunity for mom, consciously or unconsciously, to feminize the mind and attitudes of her son, who craves and requires a strong male identity for normal development.
So, when this vaginized boy progresses to the highschool and university environments, he faces a deluge of the left-wing, politically correct, feminist agenda. Eventually, this boy becomes a “man,” who goes to work at a politically correct newspaper, magazine, or TV network — or gets himself elected to a state assembly, the US Congress, or a state or federal judgeship. Feeling inadequate from a lifetime of propaganda, and finding it professionally expedient to be sensitive to doing the “right” thing, he then perpetuates feminist, anti-male policies, perspectives, advertisements, and TV shows.
A frightening example of how out-of-control American misandry has become is Michigan’s new Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Essentially, this law prohibits a man from leaving a pregnant woman with whom he currently resides. That’s right: If a Michigan man’s wife or girlfriend is pregnant, regardless of whether that fetus is actually his, he now is her slave — another swift kick in the balls of all men, delivered largely by men. Just how much hatred do men — who comprise the majority of all lawmakers — have for other men?
Yesterday, President George W. Bush held a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The topic was the report of the Iraq Study Group, the bulk of which Bush, thankfully, dismissed. Negotiate with Iran? Is James Baker nuts? Bush said that he has no choice but to take seriously the threats from our enemies and not allow them to prevail. Said Bush: “Historians, years from now, cannot ask why ‘Bush and Blair ignored these threats.’ I am not going to ignore these threats!”
Likewise, we men must stop ignoring the threats of total adumbration of manhood. We have the opportunity, now, to stop misandry in its tracks. We permitted it to grow; we can kill it. Otherwise, years from now, when our society is a pure gynocracy, we will be scratching our heads (our balls will long have atrophied), wondering how we lost all of our rights. Do you want to see your grandson, 20 years hence, doing his doctoral thesis on the gerontological struggles of eunuchs?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper CablesTM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
December 8th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Again, what shall we do? Don’t tell me “speak out,” write my congressman, hand posters, tell everyone, whatever, those who don’t see this will not see it (w/ rare exception) until it somehow slaps them up side the head w/ a divorce or equally strong event. People, men, just glaze over when you raise this issue.
I watch men in church nodding and giggling at the ever present anti male cute little jokes the preacher tells, I watch and want to scream THIS ISNT HARMLESS ANYMORE IDIOTS, and I listen while the men are scolded by the preacher and (in soutern churches where I live) the women enthusiastically yell AMEN after each anti male remark while the men yess AMEN as the preacher worsships at the alster of womanhood.
Tell a random man after the service how you saw it vs. how he did and he will act like you have a disease or are unstable, or simply glaze over and change the subject.
The level of apathy in this country, when combined with ignorance, then add the pathology that is liberal lunacy, leaves a very small percentage of men seeing the world clearly and the threates to their very gender. Many are happy to do the feminine act because then the wife will reward them once a month with some very mediocre sex.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Sorry, my spelling was horrible in the prior post. I need typing lessons, or to cut and paste from a place where I can spell check.
Hey…women are better spellers, so let my mistakes be born worn proudly.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
conservativation,
Have you ever tried gathering a bunch of men from your church to confront this preacher about his misandry? Why should you take it? You see, MEN are the problem. If you don’t respect yourself, women won’t respect you, either.
Action is what’s necessary. You have to make the preacher — “supposedly” a leader of all congregants — feel ashamed of his partisan, hate-filled rhetoric. He’s part of the problem. He was raised in the kind of man-hating home I wrote about.
Don’t let him make one more anti-male remark!
December 8th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Interestingly enough, when men are portrayed positively in the media (like super heroes) they are almost always single. This works for me, but it’s still important to note. Has the Michigan law been signed by the governor?
Neogtiation with Iran? It’s nice to talk, but we saw how well this line of reasoning worked in the late 30s.
Side note: I actually watched and enjoyed the Queer Eye program when it first came out (lol). There’s was a female equivalent, but it didn’t last one season.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
“If you don’t respect yourself, women won’t respect you, either.” This is a nice old fashioned quote, isn’t it. I for one, do not want the ‘respect’ of skanks, whether they wear twin-set and pearls or not, whether they are church-going or not, whether they are young or old. Women as a gender have lost my desire for their respect. Respect is something to be earned and frankly they do not deserve my effort. God isn’t alone knowing that women have no respect for men no matter what men actually do, think, or feel. I am happy with my self-respect, thanks Marc.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Perhaps that is why sports broadcasts, such as American football and soccer (the other football) are so popular. The men provide mostly positive role models. Some negative, but even Terrell Owens “donated” a football he caught for a touchdown to the Salvation Army kettle!
I stay away from churches. It is sometimes hard to talk to people with closed minds and I often lack the patience for it.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Roger,
You raise an interesting point: the gridiron, basketball court, baseball diamond, tennis court, and soccer field are the rare places where men aren’t forced to take estrogen shots. That’s why we like to watch men’s sports.
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the real world, where we have a lot of damage to undo.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Marc, agreed.
December 9th, 2006 at 2:55 am
I don’t think that you have it right when it comes to the means by which anti-male jokes, etc., comes into being, because there are a few factual issues that contradict the idea that lack of fathers causes social liberalness causes anti-maleness as manifested in things like the Michigan law.
First, liberalness is not caused by fatherlessness. The list of states that have the lowest divorce rates, such as Minnesota, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, are quite liberal. That means that we can see a positive correlation between growing up in a home with a father and turning out to be liberal.
Second, I don’t think that liberalness causes anti-maleness. I walk in both liberal and conservative circles, and I find that those mean-spirited, snippy jokes about men being stupid, etc., are much more likely among conservatives. Even the first commentator here said that he notices these sorts of jokes in “southern churches”, hardly the sorts of places where the Gloria Steinems and Noam Chomskys of the US congregate.
Also, I’d like to add that the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act was not passed by liberal feminists. That’s absurd for 2 reasons. First, if they were behind it, then it would prevent coercion both to abort and not to abort a fetus. The way it is written suggests that it’s more the doing of the religious right than feminists. Second, feminists really don’t have much power in government. I know that there are many conspiracy theorists who think that they’re running the whole show, but if they were, wouldn’t they try to get a few more women elected? I mean, the people who say that the government is run by feminists also seem to acknowledge that feminists are often concerned with the gender of elected representatives (some think even moreso than their views), so putting those two facts together there should be quite a few women in Congress. But there aren’t.
And it’s just a sign of lazy research. It took me two seconds to google the name of the bill and find, as the first search result, the action alert put out by the Michigan chapter of NOW that says to oppose that bill: http://www.michnow.org/coercive.htm. It’s obviously a bill created by anti-abortion groups to try to stop abortions, and, if they can’t, make life much worse for anyone who thinks or talks about it (to enforce this law the State would have to prove that the father at least wanted an abortion, which is reason enough for them to want to throw someone in prison).
I think that in order to have an effective men’s movement (I am very much in favor of re-evaluating what masculinity means in our culture and finding ways to ensure that all children have positive male and female role models in their lives) that we need to do some better objective evaluation of the status quo and self-examination that just saying “it’s all liberals’/feminists’/demon-du-jour’s fault”. I remember my brother, who studied business in college, telling me that he learned in his marketing class that it’s pretty much fact that stale gender-stereotypes sell among conservatives but not so well among liberals.
December 9th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Interesting point fyedka.
The problem with social conservatives, not to be confused with libertarian and small government conservatives, is that they bought into the feminazi theories that the problem is male irresponsibility. Not judicial irresponsiblity and a system that by design and in practice kicks the fathers out of their families and then destroys them.
Motivated not by ideaology, but by the greed of the lawyers and the family court judges.
No set of facts will penetrate these closed minds until it happens to them.
The education process of a divorce or even a restraining order proceeding on the man can be fun to watch but I am sick and tired of watching what could be avoided if the mind was not closed in the first place.
Please do not confuse me with these social conservatives. I am a libertarian and small government conservative who has always hated the likes of Orrin Hatch.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:18 am
fyedka,
First, you are not stating my thesis properly. I did not say fatherless homes cause social liberalism. In fact, my thesis states the opposite: liberalism causes, encourages, and condones fatherless homes. There are numerous books by liberal feminists claiming just that — for example, Stanford University gender scholar, Peggy Drexler, penned the highly-publicized book Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men, and Rosanna Hertz, women’s studies professor at Wellesley College (Hillary Clinton’s alma mater), wrote Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family.
You also said that feminists are not running the show in this country, simply because women do not dominate legislative bodies. Sorry, but feminists control the agenda. No politician can run for office without pledging allegiance to Roe v. Wade. No nominee for the US Supreme Court can be confirmed without publicly promising to support Roe v. Wade — that is feminist control at work.
Please do not confuse correlation and causation. You listed three liberal states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Minnesota — with lower-than-average divorce rates, positing that liberalism, therefore, does not cause fatherless homes. For one thing, these states have very cold winters. It’s been proven that divorce is higher in warm states (Florida and California, for example) than in cold states. This is correlation.
Also, don’t forget that, despite a large Irish-Catholic population, Boston has a Puritanical heritage and once banned explicit books and movies (Banned in Boston!). Also, Boston was against busing when the rest of the country was adopting it. Moreover, until 1965, birth control was illegal in WASPy Connecticut (see Griswold v. Connecticut), and Connecticut just returned pro-Iraqi-War Joe Lieberman to the US Senate.
Unlike you, I never hear conservatives bashing men. They may worship women, but they don’t bash men; there’s a difference. I don’t know where you live, but your statement seems odd. All the trashing of men I hear comes from left-wing liberals like Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, Amnesty International, and any NOW president, national or regional.
Finally, you accused me of lazy research, regarding Michigan’s CAPA. Again, you are misinformed. The Michigan chapter of NOW was against the bill, as written, because it didn’t penalize men enough — NOW wanted stricter anti-male custody language written into the bill.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line: left-wing liberals believe that men are inherently bad and unnecessary — except when it comes time to provide sperm, pay bills, extinguish fires, arrest criminals (men), and reach tall shelves.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:22 am
I think its more of a problem for women to solve than men, because men who harm other men and children are trying to do the impossible job of giving women whatever they want. When women stop and say enough already, then it will end, but there seems to be no such natural limit in women.
Since the dawn of civilization, or more accurately what made civilization possible, men have always looked out for men, women, and children. But women are more inclined to look out just for themselves, and on a good day, HER children, despite the “nurturing” stereotype. Now we have more female voters, and more women controlling the finances, regardless of who earned the money and whether or not dad is allowed in his own house, not to mention all the men dying off younger and leaving all the money to women. With politicians and the likes of CBS trying to outdo each other by appealing to women’s natural selfishness, a.k.a. feminism, women are basically in charge now. So we get high divorce rates, broken families, gender confusion, homosexuality, pedophilia, juvenile delinquents, nanny state government towards women, and police state government towards men. And the only “solutions” offered are things that will make it worse.
The question to me seems to be, is there a bottom to the seemingly bottomless pit women are inclined to send men to given the chance, especially when there are other men willing to do the dirty work for them. If you take one particular woman I’d say the answer is yes, as most women have some level of decency, or common sense, even if its towards their own best interests. But as one generation tries to outdo the previous generation, government and media only encourage more, and lawyers and judges are cashing in on it big time, it seems things are going to have to get as bad for women as they are for men before women tell the man-bashing Senator or television network to go to hell.
That day will come. Civilizations rise and fall. They rise with men in power and fall with women in control. We are a civilization in decline, and that is one thing in which we all seem to agree.
For now, here is something I’d like to see explained: Why in the hell does CBS relentlessly shove ads for their father bashing sitcoms down your throat when you are trying to enjoy a little respite from feminism and watching football?
December 9th, 2006 at 11:29 am
DCfather,
Sorry to disagree, but I do. As I stated before, women have taken over because men have allowed it.
It all starts on a date. Think in very simple terms. When you defer to a woman on a date, you lose. When you defer to a woman in marriage, you lose more. When you defer to a woman in laws, you lose everything. The evidence is overhwelming.
Men have a stupid need to “take care” of women, to rescue women. That’s what does them in. Stop deferring to women! Women can take care of themselves. Insist on nothing less.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:34 am
I disagree that men aren’t fighting back. The 18-34 male demographic is the most elusive demographic to whom the media is trying to appeal. These same people that generate this misandric dreck in the newspapers and on the television networks are salivating trying to figure out how to appeal to this segment of the population. They’ve found nothing that works, simply because they cannot see beyond their own biases and attempts at social engineering in order to create media that appeals to this demographic.
One interpretation of why this segment of the population is proving so elusive for these media outlets to reach is that these men ARE fighting back. They’re simply turning off the television. They’re not reading the newspaper. They’ve quit subscribing to magazines that demand them to be something which they do not wish to be.
I don’t think the lack of active resistance on the part of men is a sign of lack of resistance. Men are passively resisting these messages. They’re voting with their feet.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:49 am
VooDooJock,
I agree that men, 18-34, are fighting back with their feet, but they aren’t voting with their ballots. Apathy may feel like resistance, but it isn’t resistance. Inaction is the problem — they are too young and immature to care.
Also, that age range, 18-34, is too large for this discussion. Guys 18-25 are totally out to lunch. They are uninformed and have no interest in the political process. It’s not until they begin approaching 30 that they wake up to smell the coffee.
Look around you. Most guys silently complain but never confront people of authority — bosses, politicians, etc. — regarding anti-male policies.
In a family courtroom, this is my experience: The man’s lawyer urges him to minimize the rhetoric and pay whatever it takes to end the battle; the woman’s lawyer throws gasoline on the fire, at every turn, and urges her to castrate him.
The message to men: make peace. The message to women: make war. Men tend to suck it up and go along to get along — the old chivalry bullshit. That’s why men are the big losers.
Stop viewing women as delicate, little flowers. Start treating them, debating them, divorcing them, and legislating them like peers.
December 9th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Hi Marc as a bloke who lives down under, I say Macnamara research is spot on.
We some current affairs programs which are notorious for the stories which they do, on or about men.
Today men are blamed for not wanting to commit or for women being childless, yet three or four decades ago was not marriage seen by feminists as a patriarchial construct to enslave women?
“there is little question that men’s desire and decisions impact significantly on whether women who desire children actually wind up mothers. The truth is men can derail women’s maternity plans by failing to partner, failing to prove themselves good father material or” Leslie Cannold
What I have noticed is that women like Cannold do not want to take responsibility for their own behaviour so it much easier to blame men.
Exactly what the media does.
We are constantly bombard with negative portrayals of masculinity, currently we have these horrible ads depicting domestic violence and you guessed it. It is always the bloke who is the perpetrator.
Carey Roberts wrote a politically incorrect article saying the leading cause of female poverty was the lack of marriage. One politican down here even suggested sending single mothers to the country so they could meet single blokes.
You asked “It is happening because men are allowing it to happen. Why don’t men fight back? Why?”
Firstly men are fighting back, although it really hasn’t happened in the media. there is heaps more information around now than a decade ago and the internet is a god send.
Why did it happen?
Firstly men were conned by radical feminists and it would have taken a very brave and highly articulate man to stand up to the likes of Dowrkin et al.
Secondly, some call chivalry where men do not challange women about their misandry.
Thirdly, men were missing in research “Heterosexual males – forgotten by social work.” and when as Warren Farrell wrote “when research stops showing women as victims, the research stops.”
December 9th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
JamesH,
You wrote: “Firstly, men were conned by radical feminists and it would have taken a very brave and highly articulate man to stand up to the likes of Dowrkin et al.”
I cannot accept that men were conned by radical feminists. What happened is that men were intimidated by radical feminists. Why? Male guilt, which I write about in Under the Clitoral Hood.
Men who allow feminists to intimidate them agree with them. Allow a ridiculous law here, a castrating law there — pretty soon, life is a gynocratic prison. This is akin to pulling a loose thread on a suit: once you start, the entire suit unravels. That is what’s happened to men. Now, we have to tailor a new suit, and it’s not happening so quickly, is it?
December 9th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Marc said “Sorry to disagree, but I do. As I stated before, women have taken over because men have allowed it.”
No disagreement there. It’s who is going to stop it, at least from getting worse, where we disagree. You say men, and I say it has to be women, but that not enough women have an innate capacity to do something so noble and unselfish.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
The overall reaction from males against this misandry is the reason for the umpteen sites on the net today. If MRA’s were not on the web at all then I would say ” no one is fighting back “.
Look at the numbers at the moment, they have grown exponentially over the last year, let alone the last 5.
This does take time and we are seeing positive media responses as they know their feminised attitudes are on notice.
But, we have to keep up the pressure. We need a similar site and action like RADAR. Any and every anti-male action should be held accountable and we have to respond to each and every act with 50-100 thousand emails just so they get the message.
We need one site like that right now.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
DCfather wrote: “You say men, and I say it has to be women, but that not enough women have an innate capacity to do something so noble and unselfish.”
==================================================
I have studied many successful people and never once have I ever heard one of them recommend expecting or waiting for others to take action. Success never happens through passive inaction.
Men caused this mess because they were weak, thereby inviting women to walk all over them. Now, men must be strong enough to remove the “welcome” greetings and stop being doormats. I guarantee that women will change accordingly.
December 9th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
I have studied many successful people and never once have I ever heard one of them recommend expecting or waiting for others to take action.
Success in what, business? Success in business is different because you innovate, get a better product or service at a lower price, and succeed. For the most part, its not rigged in advance for a predetermined outcome, at least nothing like we have in the gender courts.
I’m not saying men do nothing but wait around hoping, but if government and media only want to please women, then things will change when women don’t want things so bad for men.
But again, men will kill each other, in war and otherwise, for the benefit of women. Women won’t do squat for men. Which is why it all goes to hell when women run the show.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
I know we sometimes seem to cross swords Marc, but I agree with much of what you have to say. But the ‘male responsibility’ issue can be taken too far.
“I cannot accept that men were conned by radical feminists.”
No. Not the men, the boys. They were conned largely by their MOTHERS. Mothers who quietly smiled when the femonazis said all men are rapists. Their little boys, their sons, gazed at them and took the message in. They felt ashamed and horrified of their future. Mothers smiled when they heard femonazis say that women were oppressed by a patriarchy. The ashamed son’s gazed and wanted to relieve their mother of this terrible (but overblown) burden. The sons were convinced, as children are, that it was their fault. They were male after all. They saw mum smile whenever she heard ‘its all men’s fault’. Dad was the only man these boys knew. They saw her frown and look sad when she heard that men control everything and she was a slave.
Dad had to be overthrown, the bastard.
Mothers everywhere grasped the victim status and little boys who loved them stepped up to the plate and took the burden. So yes, they became the lawyers and judges and bureaucrats who destroyed the wicked dad.
If only those mothers had snorted ‘NONESENSE’ whenever they heard such crap. If only their love extended to defending the men they said they loved. But by the time these boys reached their late teens and wanted to change the world, the mothers and their girls had become princesses who must be saved.
And you join in blaming men! A generation of men was brainwashed by their mother’s smiles of betrayal. No, not just the femonazis, but the mothers who smiled. Mothers who betrayed their children just so the could feel ‘poor me’.
December 10th, 2006 at 5:10 am
On one hand men were conned and on the other they were intimidated, emotionally, psychologically, verbally.
When I was younger I supported feminism. Why?
Even though many of the claims of feminists did not feel right, I was still too young to understand and there was not much information to the contary available.
I thought if I could just learn not to commit the alleged sins of our fathers, I’d have woonderful relationships etc, but basically it all f*ck with my head.
As Esther Vilar writes ‘women train men with the occasional use of their’
I just hope that there is reincarnation and that the feminists come back as men so that they can experience the world that they created from a males point of view.
To me campaigns like WRD have very little to do with ending violence and more to do with ‘bullying’.
December 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Marc:
I do agree that men need to quit abandoning their rights and participate in the political process. However, it’s not like there are any pro-male (or even rational candidates) to vote for. We have Democrats who further wish to subjugate men by actively legislating anti-male policies such as VAWA. The Republicans aren’t much better, as their ‘family values’ platforms are roughly translated as “You men do all the dirty work, and carry women on your back.” Either way, women and their interests get a free ride while men are further subjugated.
What’s needed is a pro-male lobby that looks out for our interests and provides information on which candiates are out for our best interests. Women have “NOW” and their various other political action committees, men need them as well. Unfortunately, such a committee is likely to be labled as a hate-group no different from the KKK because men are never victims.
I completely agree. Politicians will never look out for men’s interests until men collectively demand it.
I wouldn’t write off that 18-25 demographic just yet. There’s a few men’s groups that have a lot of members in that age group. It’s a sign that some of them are starting to wake up and see the immediate future. Those 18-25 year olds that get routinely screwed over are going to make formidable adversaries when they hit their 30’s.
December 10th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
VooDooJock,
You are so right. I believe there is a dearth of “pro-male” candidates because nobody has seen supporting men as a winning strategy. Why? Men have been too silent to convince candidates otherwise.
Vote whores support women because the terms woman and silence are oxymornonic — women complain, whine, stomp their feet, and … and WIN!
To wrest back our rights, we men must take this fight — at both the female box and the ballot box — into our own hands. Numbers make a difference.
The strong-but-silent type is weak; he loses.
December 10th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I feel as if I have just walked in on a private man-to-man conversation. Hope you don’t mind the intrusion!
As a woman, it is interesting to read this article and all of the comments that come along with it! My primary reaction was that of near- horror, but a lot of what you say is true! I have never thought of men as victims, so it is interesting to hear men’s viewpoints.
I wish that somehow men and women would be more equal, which would mean that men could not be discriminated more than women. There are some horrible men out there, but there are also some terrible women.
I think that both men and women have disadvantages. Many times women will “win” in the courtroom when it comes to child support/divorce, rape, etc, whether or not the man is trully “guilty”. Women often come across as innocent little things, and often they are not. There is alwasy two sides to a story. But women don’t always have a charmed life, either. You have no doubt heard that many times, since women usually talk a lot! I just think that both sexes have a lot of problems, it is not one-sided.
If my thoughts are not quite coming across cohesively, forgive me. I am new to commenting in these forums.
(By the way, although I am a woman, I am not a feminist, so please don’t stone me!)
December 10th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Welcome to the real world, KVolz. No intrusion at all. Now you know how men REALLY feel.
Please continue participating.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
That is great, because I honestly like hearing how men really feel. Sometimes it seems like people don’t share what they think or feel because they don’t want to seem insensitive, or weak, or politically incorrect… I like hearing what is real. Even if it is not what some women want to hear, there is no point in sugar-coating something so it seems more “pleasant”.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
For years, feminists have been holding a proverbial gun to mens’ heads based on the 19th century superstitition that gender is a social construct. The sexual revolution, and the rise of the modern welfare state are just logical extensions of the quixotic quest for androgyny. It’s time to blast the idea of gender as a social construct, that sexual differentiation is discrimination against women, out of the water once and for all. In fact, that idea has been discredited since at least the mid-1970s but no one has the courage to say it for fear of being “hateful.” Why are we still believing in some stupid 19th century superstition and made to feel guilty about it? Isn’t this the 21st century? Androgyny is a lie and it’s about time we call their bluff.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
DcFather said ” Women won’t do squat for men. Which is why it all goes to hell when women run the show.”
What kind of women are you around? Most of the women I know do a lot for men. Or do you mean in society, as opposed to relationships?
As for being selfish, everyone has a level of selfishness in them, and even though I’ve seen a lot of women who are that way, I have seen quite a few men who are like that, too. Maybe in different ways.
December 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
KVolz,
I’m guessing that you’ve been married for a long time and that all your friends are married — and are far-removed from the real world. Also, you may not be fully aware of what goes on behind closed doors in the homes of your girlfriends.
Selfishness and misandry abound. Look at how men are treated in TV commercials and sitcoms. Very badly. That’s what this article is all about — the treatment of men on TV is a reflection of how “society” views them.
Look at how Jessica Simpson assaults a man in this DirecTV commercial, with her shoe on his throat. Can you imagine a man doing this to a woman with impunity? NFW! Her action is not self-defense, and she’s not even angry. In fact, she’s cutesy while she does it.
By the way, you tried to distinguish between relationships and society. What is society, if not the collection of many, many relationships?
December 10th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Sure women do things for men, KVolz. Some are really nice and do nice things, so I am told.
A Big difference from men of course. All men are rapists. Clearly there are no nice men doing nice things for women. All men are rapists. Shall I reapeat that, as so many women do? All men are rapists. Not the less than 0.1% of men. All men. I have been told that too.
When women stop defending themselves and their niceness whenever a man says that masculinity, maleness, men are under attack, and start taking a stick to the women who say such wicked things about men, then I will recognise their better qualities. But I won’t hold my breath. I have been waiting TOO LONG.
You are a nice woman, who is nice to men, KVolz? SHOW ME. Let me see the misandric bitch blood on your club. I want to SEE sticks and stones breaking their bones because sure as hell their words, turned into man-hate-laws, are hurting me. And they are destroying society.
December 10th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
I agree that society and the media are very negative when it comes to men. And I also see how negative most women feel about men. I am not claiming to be innocent of that, by all means. As a whole, most men are not that bad. It’s the bad men that are focused on, bringing down the world’s view of all men.
I have noticed many times how women can get away with a lot of things that men would never get away with. I think it is sickening. I almost wish that when cases were in court, the people making decisions about whether or not the person on trial is guilty or innocent would not know their gender. That is, of course, impossible. But it would sure bring to light how much bias there is for men. Or is bias even the right word?
December 10th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Rudov said, “I’m guessing that you’ve been married for a long time and that all your friends are married — and are far-removed from the real world. Also, you may not be fully aware of what goes on behind closed doors in the homes of your girlfriends.”
That is actually quite true. I have been married for 7 years, which is enough to set me away from the real world, as you call it.
December 10th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
I have been seeing that commercial. It is truly disappointing because a year ago, Direct TV had a commercial where a father and son had fun together playing with their Direct TV gizmo while watching a football game.
Speaking of excellent football games: Matt Hasselbeck of the Seahawks throws a clutch pass to Deion Branch on 4th and 20 yards in the last minute, while down by 6 points, Deion cathes the ball and runs for a first down!
Only he was short by half a yard and the Cardinals won the game.
Both teams seemed to be gracious with each other at the end of the game, shaking hands and smiling, showing excellent sportsmanship.
Positive role models.
Whoda thunk we would see that in a bunch of men!
In answer to KVolz’s concerns, I have long suggested that one really positive reform that can be made in divorce law is the presumption that the petitioner, male or female, is the one who is volunteering to give up custody of the children, the house, and to make the child support payments.
Unless it is a joint petition, in which case we have a divorce by contract.
Rebuttable by proof that the respondent is at fault for the failure of the marriage, where such respondent has the right to demand a jury for such determination of fact and not rely on the “fairness” of the family court judges.
But that would reduce the divorce rate!
We can’t have that!
December 11th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Anyone who thinks men don’t do nice things are either wih the wrong crowd, or they are sticking their heads in the mud. I think a lot of men go out of their way to help women, and many of them are taken advantage of. When I need help, it is more likely the men that would help me than the women. I really appreciate the opposite sex, and I wish everyone treated them well. Then maybe everyone would get along (wishful thinking).
Rudov, you are right about societies being a collection of relationships. That is true. But individual relationships are all unique, and society is just a jumble of the different relationships. I am not sure if that makes sense to anyone but me.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Knight, that sounds like a good idea. And I’m sure it would reduce the divorce rate!
December 11th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I’ll chime in. First off I am 22 so I am in that bracket of ages mentioned above. As I grew up alot of the complaining and oppression touted news didn’t sit well with me. I could see that 1+1=3 in thier case.
I think what many men may be hitting on is that most women seem to never recognize the good in men. They complain and point out faults at every turn. Any good deed is seen as expected and supposed to happen, not that it was a gesture of kindness, but a right. Then anything that men do that upsets women is seen as the evil of men and harped on.
As the song goes, “what have you done for me lately?” and this seems to sum up alot of women’s views lately. A man may have done a lot of good stuff in the past but it doesn’t seem to build up goodwill. No the latest grievance is the epicenter for the relationship.
You can claim I am bitter and you’d probably be right.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Mirwalk, welcome to the dialogue. You are part of a male generation that has experienced more misandry than any in US history.
It would be helpful for you to describe in my blog what male hatred you experienced from your highschool teachers, your college professors, and your female contemporaries.
Many people wrongly believe that today’s female college graduates are independent and emancipated. There is widespread evidence that they are greedier and more entitled than women from the 1950s.
What say you?
December 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
(Quoting DC Father): “I think its more of a problem for women to solve than men, because men who harm other men and children are trying to do the impossible job of giving women whatever they want. When women stop and say enough already, then it will end, but there seems to be no such natural limit in women.”
In other words, women are the effective rulers of society today; the males in congressional & judicial positions are merely puppets. Or, to compare to the pre-Civil-War slavery system, women are the slavemasters, while the senators, reps & judges are the “house slaves” who keep the rest of the male population (”field slaves”) in check, in return for which they get women’s votes when election time comes.