The Culture of Permanent Boyhood
What do you think of when someone mentions “men’s entertainment?” Probably strip clubs, Playboy, pornography or other penis-centric activities. Behavior once characterized by a pubescent seventh-grader has been established as the gold standard of manhood.
This attitude pervades the sex-crazed Western world. When in Italy a few years ago I noticed frequent nudity during TV commercials. Almost every time a topless woman was show, the commercial was for a cell phone. I have yet to place the connection between naked women and text messaging. While commercials shown in the United States are not quite as exhibitionist, they still suffer from the same sexual pathology.
Almost every movie that attempts to cater to a male audience will include obviously gratuitous nudity. Commercials that market products to men will likely include some female model. As the saying goes, “sex sells.” Technology conferences that include product expos include the gratuitous “booth babes” that attract men by their pants instead of their minds. The same is true for auto expos.
It is easy to blame marketers for using women as cheap props and catering to the worst in men. The fact is, however, marketers would cease using sexuality in an instant if it didn’t work. Society has socialized men into being led around by their pants. The few men that speak out against such insipid nonsense are instantly labeled as dweebs.
Historically, this pattern of male over-sexualization has not been the norm. Men who openly lusted after women were derided and viewed as dishonorable. Those who engaged in premarital sex where shunned by their families and communities. Women, for their part, would simply not tolerate men who could not control their libidos. The rule didn’t necessarily hold for the cultural elite. Their morals have always been more flexible in every time and civilization. However, they still maintained the public façade of fidelity.
The rise of feminism and the sexual revolution has altered this dynamic. Previously, male sexual wanderlust was generally opposed by women. Women used their position to enforce, to some extent, male sexual fidelity. The sexual revolution and the brands of feminism that drove it dealt with the problem differently.
The anecdote most commonly heard is how unfair that a man who sleeps around is a “stud” and that a woman who does the same is a “slut.” The implication that generally follows is that a woman should be allowed to be just as promiscuous as men seem to be. It quietly assumed that the worst men among us were the model of manhood and then held up the model for women to emulate.
To be fair, feminism (or more precisely “Sex and the City feminism”) is not to blame for the boyish tendencies of the modern male. Those tendencies have existed since the beginning of time. However, by encouraging the behavior by labeling it normal and then encouraging women to do the same has made the problem epidemic.
The result has been nothing short of tragic. Young men and women simply do not know how to relate to each other outside the bedroom. When talking about women’s health, odds are the conversation is solely around birth control. Discussions on men’s health are more likely about sexual performance. Sex is meant to precede relationships, not flow naturally from them. Men have always been averse to commitment. Society now encourages this behavior.
The true brunt of this boyishness is felt by women. They are generally left raising children alone by men who refuse to commit. Most studies indicate men are more likely to cheat than women. Additional studies show the emotional devastation that women endure when they find their spouses are frequent purveyors of pornography (i.e. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28, 198-206).
Men are harmed, albeit to a lesser degree. They are left unable to engage in an intimate relationship with a woman. They enter loveless after loveless relationship never able to look at their partner as anything more than an object. Over the long term, they begin to feel the brunt of loneliness and emptiness.
It is time that both men and women stand up and say enough is enough. Women, for their part, need to insist on sexual maturity from men they are or will be involved with. Men must not tolerate those among us to continue to act like pubescent 13-year-olds. Until more people stand up and treat sex as sacred instead of a worthless commodity to be traded without thought, the damage to women and men will continue.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a freelance columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange. | More from John Bambenek
Stumble It!
January 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“Bless them that curse you”
Jesus’ words are a satisfying explanation for the best way to influence human behavior.
Christ is acknowledging that human passions are a lifeform unto themselves. He is saying that irrational passions must be treated as we might treat a wounded animal: best leave it alone and wish it a successful recovery.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Denis,
No, the Bible of Jesus was the Old Testament. How can one understand the New Testament without studying the text that early Christians used? That being said, Jesus came to us with a new covenant
What I am saying is that I do not believe that daPoet knows what he is talking about.
As to the anger, Christ speaks of that as well.
Again Christ’s words, not my own…and no I do not claim to be able to do as he tell us to do, I only claim to make my best effort and my best effort is not to dwell in my anger. I do on occasion manage to avoid that. If to obey the words of my Lord is to “become feminised,” then so be it. Above all others I am compelled to follow the will of my God.
God and Christ do not expect perfection from us, only that we aspire to perfection.
Sorry, no more sermons.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“As if you knew what a Christian is supposed to be. Isiah is old testiment.”
So are Christians supposed to toss the Old Testament to be what a Christian is ’supposed to be”?? It’s a serious question. It sounds like you are passing judgement on what is and is not a good Christian (as in:”supposed to be”; according to who exactly). Heck there are lots of good lessons in the Old Testament. I rather enjoy the fulfilling of the New from the Old. The story of David & Goliath. The story of David (Chronicles), a powerful masculine warrior, from whom the lineage of Jesus himself is traced. My God is similarly a warrior for good against evil. The story of Moses (Book of Exodus)and how God commanded him to deliver the Jews from slavery. My God is a just God. How about Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis)? My God will pass His judgement and remove the wicked. Sometimes HE doesn’t turn His other cheek and sometimes HE does not require us to turn the other cheek either. I guess it all depends upon the source of the anger; is it about egotism or is it about justice.
The anger exhibited in those great quotes posted by Roger Knight, and the anger exhibited by the passionate writings of some of the posters here are anything but expressions of fear. They probably were inspired fans of these Old Testament stories also.
I just wish Christian churches, including my own Catholic one, had masculine warrior leaders. These too I’m afraid have become too feminised.
The War Against Feminism I suspect will live on because it is the just thing to do.
Don’t lose the anger.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Will, thank you for acknowledging that I am trying, though not always succeeding, in maintaining a certain decorum in my commentary on what is truly a ruthless tyranny that has infected the American legal system and body politic.
I would comment on your other faults but I am having a difficult time seeing past this darn beam in my eye!
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
dapoet,
As if you knew what a Christian is supposed to be. Isiah is old testiment.
I recommend a visit to the Gospel of Luke (among others).
That pretty much goes straight to the matter as discussed by me. Not my words, but Christ’s.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
Will Malven
Second, while I acknowledged my ignorance on the issue and conceded the point, I will point out one significant difference. When a woman “rapes” a minor, her victim is usually traumatized, but still breathing. When a man rapes a minor, quite often the wind up in the morgue.
The difference is in how the law unconstitutionally treats a man ver how it treats a woman.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
I think we should let God do the passing and failing business. He has more practice.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
Actually will it is conservatives like yourself and john who by blindly defending females and blaming men have lost not only their Credibility and Integrity but are without honor as well…
Anyone who claims to be a Christian as you have is subject to having their claim tested and verified by the word of God remember it is written that: To the law and the testimony if they do not speak according to this word it is because there is no light in them. Isa. 8:20
Your made the claim to be a Christian, I tested your claim and unfortunately you failed the test…
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Roger,
You are right and I apologize, the “yours” in that comment was intended to be non-specific, it was in the general sense, referring to the general tenor of what has been said. I do not consider what you said in any way immoderate. It was merely a poorly constructed sentence.
Nor do I think that the quotation you have recited are particularly immoderate. Some in fact are among the greatest statement which have been made regarding the dangers inherent in government
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 am
Dapoet,
Once again resorting to name calling due to lack of intellectual argument…guess what-You Lose!
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
Old dead issue dapoet,
First, how typical of you to post off topic in an attempt to score points. Is that the best you can do as to the actual topic? Pitiful.
Second, while I acknowledged my ignorance on the issue and conceded the point, I will point out one significant difference. When a woman “rapes” a minor, her victim is usually traumatized, but still breathing. When a man rapes a minor, quite often the wind up in the morgue.
Third, whether and how I am judged will be between me and God. It is none of your business, I suggest you look to your own errors and see where you are wanting. I’m certain they are legion.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:22 am
John once upon a time I used to think as you did but when I began to suspect that the pastors and other Christian leaders that I respected had been lying to me…I began doing my own research studying the bible for myself as well as researching the feminists claims…
That is why she males such as yourself and will, who suffering from an extreme case of estrogen poisoning which results in being easily manipulated by females, can no longer pull the wool over my eyes…
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 am
Sorry Mike but until wimmin change for the better than this is what I will continue to do:
Teaching My Son To Steer Clear of Wimmin
As a boy who grew up in the sixties and came of age
in the seventies I was taught and knew that it would
be my primary responsibility to financially support
my family should I ever get married…
Not wanting to end up like my father who spent
most of his time earning a living in his office…As
well as the majority of his free time catering to the
selfish whims, irrational demands, unreasonable
needs and imaginary wants of my
stepmothers…Whose psychotic need to control,
intentionally lie to as well as to both sexually and
emotionally manipulate my father knew no bounds…
Not only did I chose as a wife a female who didn’t
insist on living in a million dollar mansion and a
brand new Lexus for Christmas every year…I chose
a job that would allow me to both have a family as
well as have enough time to pursue self-fulfillment
through my writing…
Unfortunately during the same period of time that I
both grew up and came of age…The females of both
my mother’s and sister’s generation were taught
that the rights and privileges that men like myself
were and are still required to earn were their’s by
right nor were they taught to take responsibility for
the consequences of their own poor choices and
actions…
As a result I have been forced to teach my son to
steer clear of wimmin and to avoid entering into any
form of intimate relationships with females…It is my
sincere hope that in the future my Son will find self-
fulfillment in his artistic abilities…Instead of wasting
his time catering to the selfish, unreasonable,
imaginary wants and irrational demands of a
gender…Who could care less about what happens to
my son and his fellow brothers as long as they can
get whatever it is they want out of him and any other
male who has the decidedly misfortune of coming in
contact with them…
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 am
Will Malven wrote:
“As a Christian, I choose to do that which I know to be right. On occasion I get burned, usually I don’t. That is a price I am willing to pay.”
Will…”Thou art weighed in the balances and found wanting…”
Don’t flatter yourself a true Christian would not advocate for treating the rapist of an underage boy differently than that of an underage girl…Nor claim as you have done that underage boy’s are not and cannot be harmed by engaging in an intimate relationship with an older female…
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 am
Will Malven said:
“Roger,
YOur comments about our forefathers are irrelevent…unless you have decided that only by taking up arms can feminism be stopped.”
Writing polite letters for 40 years works pretty good, right?
“Besides, the words they used were not nearly so immoderate as yours.”
Oh really. My comment at No. 6 did not strike me as immoderate at all. My comment at No. 19 was an attempt to instruct you as to what is actually going on here.
I was under the impression you did not know. It is like those who hop over the guard rail on the Denny Creek stretch of westbound I-90 over Snoquamie Pass. The fir trees make it look like you are on the ground. The truth is that the ground is 50 feet down. If you are acting ignorant of the truth I can either try to inform you or let you find out for yourself!
The truth is that for every father who voluntarily abandons his family, there are at least a dozen who are kicked out of their families. Yet like the person with broken legs 50 feet below I-90, you behave like you don’t believe me.
As for the immoderate statements of our founding fathers, Patrick Henry’s statement about giving him liberty or giving him death is that he is not interested in growing old while putting up with tyranny.
Neither am I.
The revolutionaries fought under a flag bearing the image of a rattlesnake and the legend: “DON’T TREAD ON ME”
If a rattlesnake will not put up with being walked on, why should we humans?
Take a close look at Virginia’s state flag. It shows a woman standing over a prone figure and bears the caption, “Sic Semper Tyrannis”, Latin for “Thus ever to tyrants.” Sounds like an official endorsement of violence to me!
Here is what I posted at
http://www.rgj.com/blogs/judge-shooting/2006/07/recent-posting-was-correct.html#comments
Here are some quotes that some of you might find appalling:
“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”
—John Adams
Judge Weller might find that appalling.
“Government is not a particularly good teacher of virtue. The state tends to be effective at simple, blunt tasks, like killing and jailing people. It has been far less successful at shaping individual consciences.”
Doug Bandow
“The only thing liberals have done for blacks is give them an inferiority complex.”
—Charles Barkley
And to render impossible a black man to be the father and husband of his family.
“It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.”
—Frederic Bastiat
Partly because the plundered react badly.
“Of course, lawmakers rarely repeal anything. They may amend a previous law, always for the worse it seems, but never repeal one. That would be like admitting a mistake and how can we worship a government that admits it makes mistakes?”
—Roderick T. Beaman
Which is why violent revolution is sometimes necessary. Unfortunately violent revolution can create a worse tyranny and the Metric System.
“Nor should the law be something that only a highly-paid lawyer or University of Michigan dean can comprehend. It should be easily understandable to the people themselves—or else it isn’t really law. It’s elitist social policy masquerading as law.”
—Thomas Bray
“Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will turn vegetarian.”
—Heywood Brown
“If there were a drug that required politicians to divulge the true reason for their legislation, that drug should be free, and compulsory.”
—William F. Buckley
“Every time the government attempts to handle our affairs, it costs more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves.”
—Benjamin Constant
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”
—Calvin Coolidge
“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”
“The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.”
—Justice William O. Douglas
“An unarmed man is incapable of functioning as a free citizen; his property, his body, his very life are at the command of others, since there is no risk inherent in committing depredations upon him.”
—Alexandre Dumas, pere
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”
—William Burroughs
“Tyranny is of three kinds, viz., that which enslaves the person, that which seizes the property, and that which prescribes and dictates to the mind.”
—John Foxe
“The welfare state cannot operate without the police state.”
—John T. Flynn
“With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but with tyrants, I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.”
—William Lloyd Garrison
“A government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”
—Barry Goldwater
“That is the paradox of dogmatic liberalism: Though it loudly declares itself a champion of the weak; it is actually an unrelenting truncheon of the strong.”
—George Grant
“A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy.”
—F. A. Hayek
“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors—and miss.”
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
—Robert A Heinlein
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
—Patrick Henry
“There are not enough jails, not enough policemen, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people.”
“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
—Hubert H. Humphrey
“If we are made in some degree for others, yet in a greater are we made for ourselves. It were contrary to feeling, and indeed ridiculous, to suppose that a man has less right to himself than one of his neighbors, or indeed all of them put together. This would be slavery, and not that liberty which the bill of rights has made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged.”
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
“It is every Americans’ right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself.”
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
—Thomas Jefferson
“Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”
—Andrew Johnson
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…”
—Richard Henry Lee, Member of the First U.S. Senate.
“The existential root of Libertarianism is the experience of being very bad at taking orders from morons.”
—Leopold Leider.
“Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark.”
—Walter Lippmann
“[F]or although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself.”
“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts—not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”
—Abraham Lincoln
“Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.”
—H. L. Mencken
If you want proof of the Supreme Court’s fallibility, look no further than the Dred Scott decision.
—paraphrase of Peter McWilliams
Divorce law as presently practiced is beyond the authorization of the Constitution. If a citizen resorted to the 2d Amendment to deal with Judge Weller, it is because Judge Weller does not believe in the Constitution he swore to support and has proven such disbelief on numerous occasions. He is indeed a moron from whom some people are vary bad at taking orders.
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
“The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall; the unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there’s nothing in the mall and if you don’t go there they shoot you.”
—P. J. O’Rourke
“It has been my experience that whenever a leader—whether elected, anointed or media-appointed—does not want you to see something, that’s probably the time when you should go out of your way to see it.”
—Clarence Page
Source: http://www.geocities.com/evilsnack/capquote.htm
And you thought my comments are immoderate!
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I dont think that mirwalk is saying that any man out there is lowering his behavioral standards becuz of how some women are acting…In fact if you look at the truth this is exactly how most women are acting. Women are simply trying to act like “the boys”. Men who have standards, and values are walking like such. I think that many men choose not to change themselves becuz women areacting like monkeys in the jungle. I see many men hold on to their standards…But once again these women will intentionally seek out men who are irresponsible and useless. The bad boys rein, and these are the men who get a hold of these silly women, and then its good guys that are getting blamed for it…
If you look at the relationships that these women choose, then you can clearly see, that in the mating system if you act like a wild out of control male, then you can get the female. If he acts like a monkey and disrespects the female, then she is more likely to be with this type male, then a more civil male who will hold her accountable to being a civil female.
I have notseen one man come out and say if women act like monkeys then men should too…
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Mirwalk,
The fact that some women do not live up to their part of the bargain is not a justification for men to sink to their level. Are you a MAN or are you just a dog to be controlled by your hormones?
Presumably we do what is right because it the right thing to do, not because we might gain from it or because we expect others to live up to our standards.
You either do that which is right or you do that which is wrong. In this case, there is no in between.
As a Christian, I choose to do that which I know to be right. On occasion I get burned, usually I don’t. That is a price I am willing to pay.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
If women seek out these type of men, then much of this responsibilities start with women.
I have said it before, their is a fear in men to demand of women what they should. A man who thinks that women are less human beings tend to think this way.
The debate seems to be that there men who think that curing our issues starts with men who will act responsibly to women, and then women will fall into place…Then there are menwho see the truth before them, that western women have to be held to much more account to their choices…
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Alright, I now feel I need to fully weigh in on this. The deterioration of mens drives and aims, the reversion to boyishness as you put it, is a lamentable fact. However, your calls for men to stand up and take our responsibilities are quite abusrd in my opinion. The fact is that a man who takes on these responsibilities, will usually be bitten in the arse by it.
Marriage, divorce, child support, claims of abuse, ect. These are all more likely if you are a full man and take your responsibilites. If you instead love em and leave em… then you only have the chance of false rape charges compared to alot of others.
I think that the better place to start is by having women take their responsibilities more seriously. Then it will be simple for men to take theirs. The loss of our manliness is in due to the fact that women do not allow us to assume those roles that we once filled. Without our roles our manliness counts for squat. So we have adapted to the new rules. Unfortunately, this is a ruleset where everyone tries to screw everyone else over and are all out for themselves.
Having one side of the equation try to assume their responsiblities in the face of ther other side trying to give away all responsbilities is not the answer. There are plenty of men left that will do the proper thing, but only with the proper woman. Unfortunately, they have all but become extinct.
At least this is my point of view. If you wish to condemn it as childlike, a tantrum, or cynicism, feel free. That however will only be YOUR opinion.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
amfortas-always enjoy reading what you have to say.
ditto:
snootfish
ditto:
bombbombbombbomb
I often find the most inspiring and thought provoking ideas coming from the posters and not the “columnists”.
Thanks for the commentary guys.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“Marginalizing yourself from healthy relationships because you hate an ideological enemy like “Feminism†is not reasonable. Feminism is a mirage.”
Those Jews who “marginalize” themselves from the NAZI ideology most likely faired better than those who thought it was a mirage. Mankind may be of one flesh, but the Feminists like the NAZIs, by their very nature, think and act otherwise.
I think no one here would marginalize themselves from a “healthy” relationship, the problem is the small probability of having and maintaining one in our modern feminist world regardless how “Manly” you are.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
All I meant to say was that – in this case – “feminism” is a feint when the term is used as a shim for simple misogyny.
I agree that there is a virtual beast at large and that this living animal has a shared identity that you and I might think of as “feminism”. It’s a set of shared ideals and practices that have a harmful impact on the family unit, and that tendentiously marginalize men from their families. In that sense, “Feminism” is a pernicious ideology.
But then, so is ‘misogyny’ – which I am bound to reject with the same vigor as I reject misandry.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Feminism is not a mirage. Tell that to the man handcuff and taken to jail for no reason at all other than his gender (a woman would never be arrested under similar circumstances). Tell that to the man who has his paycheck reduced nearly in half every month for children that he never sees and who have been taught to hate him. Tell that to the man rotting in prison for a rape he never committed (or child abuse he never committed) due to rigged rules of court and evidence applicable in no case other than these types of cases against men. Tell that to the man who is shot in the head and who looks down from his place in the heavens to see his attacker never even prosecuted or possible acquitted based on vague accusations that he was abusive (she is the one who shot in the head yet he is abusive). More examples could be given. No, feminism is not a mirage. It is something very, very real. It really hurts people. Anger is natural and appropriate. In fact, people who don’t feel anger under these types of circumstances would have a real problem.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Legitimate anger is an emotion caused when we are blocked from our legitimate aims. It is a valid and natural emotion. It can be a healthy drive to bring about change.There are also emotional outbursts which are part of the human condition, that are illigitimate and caused by fantasms of the mind. Illigitimate aims blocked can also induce anger and it is very clear that what feminists get angry over can be the most trivial of narcissistic desires and the drive for control. A pathological drive that destroys others. I do not seek to control but do seek to resist the Lies and repetitions of Lies.
But to say that Feminism is a ‘mirage’ is mistaken. Mirages affect the senses, particularly the visual cortex, through reflection of something real but at a distance. This does not describe Feminism which had a profound effect on out institutions, is right here infront of me and seriously damages the physical existence of many, many people, women as well as men. Feminism is real.
My ‘outburst’ was legitimate but crude. That’s all. Crude makes a point.
Bambenek’s reponse is a mere superficial avoidance, unworthy of an intellect.
Feminism will not be destroyed without righteous anger. Even Jesus got angry – aye, and violent – in the Temple courtyard. He sent the merchants fleeing when he unleashed his rage at their mere insult to His Father. He used a whip, I understand. That’s all that was handy, is my guess. What He could have done had He an Uzi, thankfully we will never know.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
We must also consider that women are attracted to men who they now call the “Alpha Males” who are actually men who represent the irresponsible men, who cannot or will not do right by their children.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
donnieboy, badger,
The equivalent is to say:
“Terrorists use violence against civilians to pursue their political objectives so why can’t we?”
Just isn’t done, old boy.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Anger is born of fear. Fear is born from a lack of faith in God. To live in anger is to live a life that is unhealthy.
There is nothing inherently wrong with feeling anger, it is a natural emotion, but to dwell in it, to feed it, and not to recover from it is unhealthy. It is only through forgiveness that healing can occur. You may not like it, but it is a fact.
“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”
Roger,
YOur comments about our forefathers are irrelevent…unless you have decided that only by taking up arms can feminism be stopped.
Besides, the words they used were not nearly so immoderate as yours.
“Let them eat cake,” was spoken by a disinterested and uninformed soul (Marie Antoinette) who was not seeking to solve the problem being addressed.
Real revolution is not an emotional act, it is an act which comes from deliberate consideration. If words would have sufficed, they would have used them. In fact they did use them extensively. The decision to declare independence was debated for a considerable amount of time…”Fools rush in…” and all that stuff.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Excellent point donnieboy57. You hit the nail on both of their heads. When frustration in the form of the written word comes from a man we are told to grow up or the nearest police officer is called. It is so typical of “manginas” (and I will use the word again) along with the fembot crowd to try to throw it back in our face. They have nothing of relevence to say. It is all so obvious. Typical cultish twaddle.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Men and women are both of the same flesh. That’s not merely poetic metaphor – it’s fact. You cannot have one without the other.
Marginalizing yourself from healthy relationships because you hate an ideological enemy like “Feminism” is not reasonable. Feminism is a mirage.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
John Bambenek said,
“Thank you all for proving the central thesis of my piece. You react with criticism not with intelligent comments, but the temper tantrum of a child who just got his toy taken away.”
There were many intelligent comments based on published papers and experience. Your response stiffled any further commuciation, not the passionate response to your article. It is the height of ego to suggest that there are no intelligent comments. Mangina truly does seem to describe your position and actions.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Has anyone but me ever noticed that when a women has an emotional outburst she is just getting in touch with here feelings and reacting to evil men. When a man has an emotional out burst, he is acting childish and brutish. WE can’t get “up”for anything anymore, unless its for the pleasure a women. I say revolt!
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
John Bambenek, Will Malven, please give me a break!
Here is what each of you do:
Get married, have children. When the children are about two years old, have your wife change her mind, get a lawyer, and then pull the old protection order trick where you are found guilty of “committing domestic violence” for doing nothing more than raising your voice when the credit card bill comes in or leaving the toilet seat up. No opportunity for cross examination, not one shred of evidence to back up her LIES and PERJURY, and poof! You are out of your OWN house that was paid for out of YOUR PAYCHECKS, prohibited from any contact whatsoever with your children, and your right to keep and bear arms is GONE, baby!
And that is only the BEGINNING.
It will never matter whether you ever did anything wrong; for what you did wrong was to become a husband and a father.
Mr. Bambenek, do you seriously consider Washington, Jefferson, John Hancock, the Adams Family, etc. as bunch of crybabies who did not get their way with the British authorities and threw a temper tantrum called the American Revolution? The same goes for Nat Turner and Sparticus? The Iraqis whose families were murdered when they taunted So Damned Insane as he stood on the gallows trapdoor?
Being a smug college professor with tenure, I would not be surprized.
You see, just about everyone involved in the American Revolution believed that death to the tyrants was a reasonable way to deal with them. The French went beyond that a few years later.
Victims of tyranny are often not willing to be polite and speak in soft terms relying on sweet reason because it is our bitter experience that such does not work!
The problem with tyrants is that they are UNREASONABLE.
Nazis. Feminazis. The Child Support Crusade. Islamofascists. So Damned Insane. Slave owners. They are all the same in that they do not give a damn about your rights or whether what they demand of you is reasonable.
And all such tyrants are aided and abetted by the clueless indifference of “Let ‘em eat cake” and “Thank you all for proving the central thesis of my piece. You react with criticism not with intelligent comments, but the temper tantrum of a child who just got his toy taken away.”
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
actually I thought “most” the posts were quite articulate. Maybe a couple were not worthy but most were good. I’d agree that name-calling will only diminish the message of the messanger that hardly refers to “most” posts here-but I read passion into the more reasoned expressions here, not histrionics. To the extent that that is possible anyways. I heard cynicism, I heard some lamenting, some controlled anger, but not adolescent histrionics. The column was pathetic.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Gentlemen, most of the responses to Mr. Bamabenek statement confirms his argument more than anything of which I can conceive. It reads like a bunch of adolescents who have had their manhood insulted. Grow up MEN!
Childish emotional outbursts of anger will do nothing to solve the underlying problem. Only through reasoned discussion will we be able to find the solution. If it is forbidden for any man to bring his point of view to the table, then we become guilty of doing the same thing those on the Left do.
Responding to the hystrionics of the feminazis with our own version of the same thing leaves us as vulnerable to attack as the feminists are. Blind emotion is the domain of children and women, not grown men. Living in fear and resentment accomplishes nothing, NO-THING!
If you have been hurt by your experience that is unfortunate, you have my sympathy. I have been there as well. However, if you continue to dwell in that angry place, you do no one any good. You damage yourself and those around you.
Your angry cries will be met with contempt and with equally angry responses. The situation can be reversed, but only through education, not by seeing who can complain the loudest.
Terms like “mangina,” “honorary woman,” and (Marc Rudolfs favorite) “vaginized male,” are the weapons of the feeble minded. Ripping someone a “new one” may make you feel better, but it will not solve the problem, only confirm the worst that is claimed about us by those who would maintain the status quo.
Not everything Mr. Babenek said is false, some of it is all too true. Self-honesty is necessary before self-knowledge can take place. If we cannot see our own faults, if we cannot discuss the shortcomings of men, then from where do we derive the moral authority to discuss those of the feminists?
Men have been and are still called enough names by the MSM and feminists, we don’t need to launch verbal barrages against our own.
Not every woman is our enemy in this war, not every man our ally, but if we fail to remain civil we lose before we begin.
The real source of the problem as I see it is the extent to which our society has become secular. We have come to rely on ourselves rather than on God. With secularism, comes selfishness. The same selfishness that tells a woman that it is alright for her to kill her unborn child if it is “inconvenient” for her to have it. With selfishness, as well, comes the attitude among ourselves that we need not be responsible in exactly where and when we deposit our “seed.”
Wild animals solve their problems by brute force with much snarling gnashing of teeth, and rending of flesh. The whole is damaged and the cause is weakened. We are not “wild animals,” at least not yet.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Thank you all for proving the central thesis of my piece. You react with criticism not with intelligent comments, but the temper tantrum of a child who just got his toy taken away.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
roger said:
I believe Ms. Bambenek is referred to in certain circles as an “honorary womanâ€.
Roger. I believe the term is mangina.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
I was going to rip this article a new one, but I find several of you did it far more eloquently than I ever could. BRAVO!
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
wow. I really enjoyed reading these posts. the battle for men’s rights has to begin with a battle between men. it is generally a small percentage of powerful men who have instituted the marginalization of men and it is the mass of ignorant men (either liberal-feminist men or traditional-chivalrist men) who have allowed this to continue for several generations without answering back the one-sidedness of hateful radical feminism. it is heartening for this MRA to see a vocal and passionate third group growing. maybe we can turn things around.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:57 am
I believe Ms. Bambenek is referred to in certain circles as an “honorary woman”.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 am
Sad sad sad – the biggest problem for men is Clueless men like John Bambenek. Men like him are the ones that continuously write and pass all the unconstitutional laws that benefit women at mens expense. Write the news articles that put down men and continue to blame men for problems that have been caused by feminist. Until we can get a majority of men to stop being patsy’s for the feminist movment in the name of chivalry and stupidity, we will continue to have articles like John Bambeneks.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 am
Amfortas I rather enjoyed your rant, the cadence, the inflection, and the manly turning of phrase…Rant on man!
My take on this is similar to snootfish. He is correct and I am sick and tired of apologizing for being born hard wired w/ a sex drive that is compelling to say the least. Marriage should be the outlet, even the Biblical model suggests we not deny one another sex, and that it keeps the thought life pure…thats pretty clear to me and snootfish says it w/ the remark that drifting into porn has become a sort of backfill for unquenched desires (this is NOT defense of porn, and thats part of the problem, people see the words and cease to interpret, rather knee jerk and react as moralists)
Today’s woman is so indoctrinated, including and maybe especially the church going ones who are evangelical feminists, that their husbands are walking around sexually frustrated nearly all the time. In a church class on marriage, we were discussing the boof His Needs Her Needs, and we tackled the top 5 needs for him and for her. We got 9 out of the way, but when mans need for sex came up, the ladies in the room became downright venomous, denying how that can be included with her need for conversation or affection as legitimate. Why sex simply is outside the negotiation here and she needn’t feel any accomodation in that area. So many of my friends tell me that they have sex once a month or so w/ the wife. Whats interesting is these once per month women then go off and have turid affairs, what the hell?
The whole picture is a mess and this article plays exactly into the twisted view of women and of the mainly ignorant in society at large. Men are sexually frustrated nearly all the time, then they do something wrong, look at porn, have an affair, whatever, and get slammed w/ a divorce. Other choice is to file divorce on her, and get slammed by the divorce, or simply sit like a good boy and accept the sexual crumbs that occasionally fall off the queens table.
There was a book written in the 70’s that I recall the title, never read it, but if it was topically what it suggests it might be even more relevant today. It was called, ” How American Women Are Turning American Men Into Homosexuals”
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 am
Yep. Roger, I did let rip a bit. I must resist the flooding of invective when my wound is jiggled. And this shoved a hot iron in it.
To Mr Bambenek, my apologies for the names. I am a naughty old wounded King. I will hoot and roar at the ideas in the article and take back all the names. All but Ogi Furushiki. That still applies.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 am
Almost everything in this article is offensive.
It suggests men should be ashamed for their sexual desires. No, men should have a safe outlet for their sexuality. This is part of having a healthy society. A society where men are sexually frustrated (or ashamed) is hardly a healthy society. Men should not have to risk financial and emotional and legal devestation to expres themselves sexually. A man risks 18 years of child support just for enjoying sex with a woman. He risks being called a deadbeat and irresponsible. He has little control over pregnancy other than permanent sterilization — don’t even suggest that a condom is sufficient. I find the degree of pornography on the internet astounding. I have to believe that if men were being sexually satisfied by women (safely) there would not be such a huge market for internet pornography. It is somewhat an exaggeration but there is obviously an element of truth to say that sexuality is leaving the real world and transitioning into cyberspace. Vast numbers of women are prostituting themselves for money on the internet. It is a disaster on a huge scale. I don’t think blaming men is right though. The blame I think is on the forces that are driving men and women apart including 1) the risks and dangers of dealing with women including divorce, child support, rape accusations, sexual harassment accusations, etc. and 2) the attitude of women which is very much demeaning and insulting of men. This article encourages this attitude. It also approves of women controlling and manipulating men and doesn’t hold women responsible for their actions.
The article is wrong and hurtful in suggesting that men are responsible for fatherless families. Most fatherless families are chosen by women either through divorce, single mother pregnancy, lesbian pregnancy, etc. I would guess that for every 20 single mother families created by a woman there is maybe 1 case where the father “abandoned his children.”
The bottom line is that the present problems result from the war of the sexes. I think women are the aggressors in this war. I think most men would be very, very happy just to have a woman who is nice to them. They don’t care if the woman is a doctor or a housewife. They don’t care about hardly anything other than that she is nice and faithful. Yes, they want her to be sexually satisfying. Men don’t really expect really a whole lot. They aren’t getting what little they do expect. Instead, they are being literally attacked verbally, legally, and in every other way possible. As a result, credit credit cards are ringing on the internet at porn sites. As a result, children are growing up without fathers. As a result, women are unhappy and men are unhappy. Nobody benefits from what is happening.
You know has it right? Dr. Laura. She is the only voice I hear advising women to be nice to their men. Everybody else is teaching women how to be critical or, to abuse, insult, etc. their men. The poor guy comes home from work and he is attacked because he left the toilet seat up or whatever. It is just one attack after another.
If women would just be nice to their men, you know what? Their men would do anything and everything for them which is how it always was. Yes, a few men did bad things to women. But, by and large, men would do everything up to and including dying for women. If there was a physical danger, men almost always took the lead.
Now, women insult, demean, and divorce their men. Yes, they get child support. They deny their children fathers. They lose far more than they gain. Don’t be attacking men who are victims of all this. You should be attacking the mean spirted attitude towards men that are responsible(you contribute to this). Your article nowhere criticizes the behavior of women. Not only do women institute most divorces. They are now just as much (or more) involved in all the vices you discuss (pornography, cheating, etc.).
There is a very simple solution to the present day problems 1) women need to learn to be nice — it is a good thing to be a good wife or girlfriend, and 2) women need to learn to appreciate a good man. These days a man can work his but off, be faithful, etc. but he can still easily be attacked (he didn’t put the toilet seat down, he didn’t do his share of house chores, etc. If he approaches the woman sexually, “all he is interested in is sex.” If he doesn’t approach her, then “he is not romantic,” etc. There is a feminine attack on the man no matter what he does or how he behaves. He literally cannot win.
Far from attacking male sexuality, there needs to be a “safe harbor.” Marriage used to be a safe harbor. It isn’t anymore. Dating used to be somewhat of a safe harbor. It isn’t anymore. A man can do all the right things. He can buy her flowers. He can talk to her father. He can take her to the prom. He can even marry her. None of these things protect him. He is still open for all kinds of accusations up to and including rape. He of course is subject to child support.
There needs to be some kind of safe for a man to have sex. I suppose we will need to set up standard forms to be signed. Perhaps, there will be check boxes. She can iniital each box as things progress (first base, second base, etc.). I can still see feminist saying “just because she initialed the box doesn’t mean she cannot with draw her consent). The absurdities are extreme. Child bearing should be a mutual decision. If women can kill to avoid the obligations of parenthood, there should be a way for men to consent to fatherhood (or to opt out).
Marriage is dead. It existed for a reason. It made sex safe and socially approved. It was effective consent to parenthood. It protected women. It protected men. It has been destroyed but there has been no substitute put up in its place. Meanwhile, men are turning to internet porn. They are being attacked for doing that. It is a very sad thing to be a man now.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 am
Many traditional Men like myself would like to see a Sane culture return. The harsh reality is that the Legal System subsidizes Women who Divorce their decent if imperfect Husbands. And Rewards Women financially when they do so. The Raunch or Slut Feminism that objectifys Women is their doing not ours. And Blaming Men for their current adaptation to the debased culture, refuses to place blame where it squarely belongs On Women and their choices.
It is primarily Women now who are sexually abusing Minors. Men are punished severely while Women get a slap on the wrist. It is even glorified on TV shows like “Desperate Housewives”. Another Male excusing Women’s behavior and blaming Men. Yawn typical justification for Slut Femininists. Sorry No Sale Bro.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 am
Whoa! amfortas, you really should not keep things all bottled up inside, it is not good for you!
But seriously folks, Bambanek is showing first class cluelessness on a par with Marie Antoinette’s famous statement: “Let ‘em eat cake!”
Mr Bambenek, with all due respect, the reason we have so many fathers not taking responsibility for their children is that they simply lack the opportunity to do so other than to acquiesce to child support peonage. And that is only if they can make the payments. Seems that planetary free trade without a planetary minimum wage is the official policy of both Republicans and Democrats (and their counterparts in Australia and elsewhere). And thus the jobs go bye bye!
Women can choose to abort or to carry the child to term, the father has not even the right to know about it, please see Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Thank you, madame justice O’Connor!
Just as true outside the US in the English speaking nations.
A mother can choose to marry the father or to withhold her hand in marriage and send the state after said father to enslave him.
And after marrying the father, she has numerous opportunites and methods to kick him back out of her life and her children’s lives, and to impose child support peonage or permanent suspension of all of his licenses. (In the US. They are proposing or doing this in the other English speaking nations.)
The problem is thus not fathers refusing to take responsibility. The problem is fathers not being ALLOWED to take responsibility and being SEVERELY PUNISHED BY ALL MEANS UNCONSTITUTONAL should they try.
The problem is not married fathers abandoning their families, the problem is FATHERS BEING KICKED OUT OF THEIR FAMILIES BY A MENDACIOUS LEGAL SYSTEM THAT CARES NOT A WHIT ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL OR ENGLISH COMMON LAW RIGHTS!
Pardon the all-caps. At least I avoided using any of the Seven Words and edted fr splling errors.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 am
P.S. I see you call yourself a Part-Time Pundit. That’s what the coded flashing light at an airport is called. You are just a flasher. For your own sake, don’t give up the day job.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 am
Tosh. Calumny. More male-bashing. What planet do you live on Bambenek, you puerile creep, where women’s heath is all about birth control and men’s about sexual performance? Where are the scantily clad booth chicks at events in my town? I guess we must avidly look in yours. Where’s the nudity on the game shows and adverts on my TV? Is it on yours? Turn yours off, thick shit, if it offends you. Don’t rope the Italians into your misandric fantasies in some sort of attempt to label half the worl’s population. Take responsibility yourself and don’t label all men. No-one I know refers to women as sluts and would laugh at a man desribed as a stud. Maybe you use these terms.
And why label all this AGITPROP stuff and nonsense as ‘Boyishness’? Picking on maleness and lately boyness as some sort of defectiveness has got to stop. Bambenek you are a thick shit to spout this misandry.
And why no mention of the female proclivity to exhibit herself. If sex sells, who is doing the selling? Who has always shaken her ‘booty’ and dropped her veils at the click of a camera shutter. Women have been doing this exhibition of themselves since time immemorial. Chicken and egg, Bambenek. Tosser.
Just listen to yourself – “Most studies indicate men are more likely to cheat than women. Additional studies show the emotional devastation that women endure when they find their spouses are frequent purveyors of pornography”. Astounding.
Such studies are the sort you find in the schoolyard. Women cheat with far more devastating consequences than men can possibly manage. Men cheat more? That’s like saying more bullets than bombs get used in a war. And just who do you think they cheat with, you brainless fart? The next door neighbours pet frog? And just who is it that cheers when men cheat? You dullard. You misandric fool. You wanker.
Men view Pornography? The internet is awash with the girl next door – and her sister – and her mum – and aunties, all stripping off in the kitchen and cavorting with carrots – for the camera, for money. There are 150 women for every man in pornography. And somehow its men’s fault! You dull tool. You ogi furushiki. F*cking grow up.
Just when will the study be done that shows the devastation endured by fathers, sons, husbands and brothers when they discover that their cherished female is the world’s visual whore. No, we are not likely to see that study done, are we. Nor are we likely to have it labelled ‘girlishness’.
Quote – “What do you think of when someone mentions “men’s entertainment?†Probably strip clubs, Playboy, pornography or other penis-centric activities”.
Look at yourself Bambanek. That’s what YOU think.
Jeez you are the first-up wanker of the year on MND.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 am
Oh yes, if I am wrong, please bring my children to me directly now.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 am
OK then, there will no longer be use of the word “stud”.
It is hereby replaced with its true nature “whoremonger” or “Man-whore”.
Nice ideals you have here sir, I tried living them as exalted by Dr, Dobson. Thus, in light of severe penalties that Femmenazi Lawyers and Judges of our Society will rain down on the loving man will face when he loses the 50/50 bet on success IT IS WHOLLY IRRESPONSIBLE FOR SOCIETY TO CONTINUE TO PLAY THE FACADE OF THE VALUE OF THIS IDEAL OF LOVE AND BELONGING!
It is Irresponsible, it is a cruel hoax, it is unconscionable, complicit, reckless endangerment, simply morally WRONG to continue in any fashion to support and promote the delusions of the Romanticists and the fabled nobility of the feminine mind. It is EVIL to blindly espouse the value of Family!
One only needs to read MacBeth to remove any such delusion of the nobility of the feminine mind.
It is EVIL to allow young men to come into adulthood being raised to believe in the lofty ideal of love that HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY THE FEMMENZI’s and their Lawyers, Judges, and legislative agents.
It is sensless to raise another boy to be sent into this battle in the house where he is unarmed and unaware of the immediate danger to his life.
The solution to what you want to promote in the boy’s life cannot be achieved by him alone for his life in the face of the Goliath of his Schooling, culture, and the mercilessness of the Courts rewarding teh guile of women who want, want, want, and want more money and no responsibility.
If you want the old days back you have to declare war against these forces by not allowing another boy to grow up to ignorantly walk out on to that battlefield to be destroyed.
There is none to help him. We who know are imprisoned and in poverty, without voice in the Courts and the legislature.
Those with voices are the only weapon left, to teach young men that their hormones and natural urges are the weapons used by the sirens of marriage and family law to destroy them.
To have any hope of success against the nature of what we are, our intellect and words must oppose it and declare war against it, so that all who go into marriage will know that they are at war from the first kiss, and prepare for the legal violence that will most assuredly come.
Glamorization and Romatisization of the past order will not equip young men to survive the new order, which is a jackboot smashing down onto a human face, forever. (A passage from 1984)
Yes, the dream is truly a DELUSION, and it is time to save others from the DELUSION. Feminism is Marxism and the battle ground is in the home and destrys the Family that lives in it.
Its power is so overwhelming and broad in its extreme that it can only be confronted with an equal extreme of misogyny.
The extreme fire of Feminism can only be fought with the extreme fire of misogyny, and they thought it was bad before, NOW IT WILL RISE UP GREATER AND STRONGER THAN THEY DARED TO DREAM.
Young men must be taught their own value and worth without women, and be taught the proper form of a Prenuptual, pre-cohabitational, and pre-conjucal agreements, as well as the use of documents subjugating a Marriage, contractual or statutorily licensed, to Arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
It is time for the empowerment of our SONS!
It is time for the creation of Schools of Men’s Studies in Conservative Colleges like Hillsdale, ORal Roberts University, Regent University and Liberty University.
Without this level of support, Marriage and all of the good things that it is supposed to represent IS DEAD, NEVER TO BE RESURECTED.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
What complete nonsense. Nationwide, women initiate about 70% of all divorces, and have the option of gaining de facto custody of their children based on a statement that they “feel afraid”. In Michigan and other states, unmarried fathers are trying, largely unsuccessfully, for changes in antiquated laws that will enable them to have some sort of relationship with their biological children.
Men are largely prevented from having relationships with their children because of a legal system that profits by putting barriers between them and their children.
To blame pornography and the lad culture for children not having fathers in their lives is incorrect and completely misguided.