Reader Criticizes Blog Posters, Says ‘American Woman–Don’t Stay Away!’
“The more I know about men, the more I like dogs”–Gloria Allred
“The women I’ve known I wouldn’t let tie my shoe. I wouldn’t give them the time of day.”–Rod Stewart, from Every Picture Tells a Story
I sometimes get annoyed at the anti-woman comments I see on many men’s sites and blogs, including my own site. I generally allow them (as well as anti-male comments from feminist posters, of which there are several), both in the interest of open debate and because I don’t have time to micromanage my blog. However, when Stan Eads (aka “stanton”), one of my most intelligent and perceptive readers, wrote me a letter recently complaining about some of the comments on my blog, I invited him to write something more detailed on the subject for me. His article is “American Woman–Don’t Stay Away!”, and is posted below.
American Woman–Don’t Stay Away
By Stan Eads (aka stanton)
Some of the posters on Glenn’s blog have taken extreme positions. Misogynist-sounding expressions can be found here and there among the comments, and one theme in particular seems to be recurring with regularity, and that is regarding American women in particular. The refrain is that American women are entirely ruined as a group, and no longer worthy partners for honest and caring American men either as wives or as mothers for their children. With a couple of exceptions, these posters tend to post anonymously. Some examples:
“Yes women, America’s politicians, courts, idiot-staffed-government agencies and pig-lawyers have exploited you more than any ‘man’ could ever have exploited you — by making you so unattractive that sane men are running away from you and not looking back.”
“By my estimate, the complete collapse of American women is within America’s proximal reach in the next 5 to 10 years, so bloated and unattractive have they become on the falsities they have been gorging themselves on. So bloated and unattractive indeed.”
And there are many more where these came from.
I have a problem with this on at least two levels. First of all, I totally disagree with the premise, that there is some kind of systemic problem with American women. There clearly is a problem with some aspects of American culture, where men are devalued and considered legitimate foils for all types of media where other groups are not.
The American family law/court system is clearly out of control, and is destroying the lives of honest citizens, not to mention creating nightmare childhood experiences for children on a massive scale. Some women are caught up in the drama of these things, certainly, and others actually celebrate and seek to perpetuate in intensify these horrors. Such women are a small but vocal minority, and are generally easily identified. And in the midst of the emotionally traumatic throes of a divorce action, many are unable to resist exploiting the absolute power that the courts hand them. (If men had such dangerous power given to them I would like to think that we would use it more responsibly than many women have, but I don’t know that we would. I do know that many men would also be corrupted thereby, and would be just as harsh in wielding it as some of the women are now.)
But the great majority of women are not in any of these categories. American women do not fit in any mold at all. They are as diverse a lot as they could possibly be, and one will find among them any and every type imaginable. Thus, if one expects to find just a bunch of screeching feminists, they are out there to be found, and the observer will thus declare his description of American women to be confirmed. I happen to believe that some of the finest women in the world are right here in America, and surprise! That’s what I found. I am married to one of them. (I might add, only after the horror story of a divorce that is easily a match for all but the worst I’ve read about here, so I am not unfamiliar with the dark side.) All of you complainers about American women – please have a good look inside yourselves. Have a different expectation, and you will have a different experience.
My other problem with these complainers about American women is concerning the consequences of their repeated comments on Glenn’s blog. These comments are not in alignment with Glenn’s mission, if I may be so bold as to declare this in his behalf, and the repeating of them in this blogspace results in detracting from this mission, which is to address the injustices males face in modern western society where men have been heretofore silenced. What I have seen over and over is that when misandrists venture in to engage in discussion of the topics that Glenn has raised, they invariably end up addressing the extremists about blaming their problems on women. The rest of us are thus denied the opportunity to actually discuss and defend the issues that Glenn has raised. We do not “blame our problems on women,” whether American or not, and we end up out of the conversation.
What is the solution? I don’t think the “Hugo-esque”* response of large-scale banning is the answer. Free speech is important, and blogs have become a vital part of a massive American and international conversation. I would start by requesting that these commenters – you know who you are – practice self-restraint to a point. You have stated your opinion on this matter, and we have heard it. There is no need to pull the conversation back there at every opportunity.
Ask yourself before you post: Does this comment further the discussion at hand, or does it urge new discussion of MY particular issues/conclusions?
(*Hugo Schwyzer went on a banning spree after some threats from several of his regulars. He was no doubt intimidated by the way Barry Deutsch had just been bullied about being too civil to men’s and father’s supporters. I was the one of the few dissenting voices he didn’t ban, and that led me to preemptively take my leave.–Stan)
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
July 21st, 2007 at 12:06 am
If I were to give you my Number One complaint about American women, viewed collectively?
That they expect men to support them. This is a process which starts early on, with women expecting men to pick up the check when dating. It’s reinforced through such customs as women expecting men to hold open doors for them and all the rest. By women quitting their jobs after they get married. And it goes into the final inning with alimony.
Please note that none of this is dictated by the courts or the media, or, for that matter, even the feminazis. It’s the product of women seeing themselves as entitlement princesses.
The men’s movement could do more to liberate us all by flatly declaring that no man will go out with any female who expects him to pick up the check. The marriage strike is one (big) step in this direction.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
To Gonzman:
I hate long discussions on formats such as this because it is so hard to review what was said by both sides, especially when there are so many other commentors. Anyway, here goes:
>PEOPLE should be accountable for their actions, not other’s bad behavior.
This place is full of men who have chosen poorly on women – do you believe then that they got what was coming to them?
And having the government step in and remove parental rights doesn’t get the government out of it, does it?
My argument was for 100% no fault divorce but I suggested that women be held responsible for their choices to counterbalance the situation if men will be held responsible for their actions and choices. Under our current system, divorce is called no fault but in reality, it’s no fault for the woman only. You appear to advocate fault divorce. Who needs a mother as a wife and Uncle Sam as his wife’s primary husband and protector? Polygamy is supposed to be illegal in this country. That restriction also applies only to men. In this country, there is no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have supporting her at the same time, as long as each of her children is by a different guy. Women make their decisions based primarily on feelings rather than logic. The same with judges these days. In my opinion, fault divorce is a deal breaker and one of the primary reasons for a man to never marry in this country because no matter what, women have the advantage over men in court. So many women and men expect men to pay and pay and pay after a divorce and no what a man does during the marriage, it’s interpreted so as to cause the man to pay the woman more. For instance, if a man is generous to his wife during the marriage, the rule is used that says the woman should continue to be maintained at the lifestyle level to which she has become accustomed. If he works hard and long hours to support his family, he doesn’t stand a chance of getting shared or exclusive custody because the mother has been doing most of the child rearing during the marriage. If he does not do these things, the divorce is his fault and she gets alimony because he is a piker and primarily responsible for the marital breakup. If the guy doesn’t pay child support, he goes to jail. If a woman has children she can’t support, she gets welfare. So how could any reasonable person expect men to consistently get a fair deal in any fault divorce system?????????????????? Give me a break!
>There is a difference between not having forced child support, and losing parental rights.
So? I guess the loss of parental rights for women is what bothers you. Yet men lose their parental rights in probably 95%-98% of all divorces. So what do you suggest instead? More rights for men or less for women?
>Never going to happen
Next must come the rebuttable presumption of joint custody. You have to have it, because a non-rebuttable presumption will never pass.
Only if the lawyers have the last word. Or women. Or both.
>What will come closest, first, is allowing fault based marriage to exist side by side with no fault. For people such as you describe, the no fault option will be available – you work out your decree, the court rubber stamps it. If not, the court will decide, and it will decide basedd on fault. Cheat on your spouse? Fault. Spend like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse on shore leave? Fault. Assault your spouse? Fault. And so on, and so forth.
Yawn! This is what we have now, more or less. Except that women always have the advantage in any disagreement in court and in most cases, the man ends up having to pay the woman’s legal bills after she decides to fight. So where is the incentive for the woman to agree to anything? Some do, of course, but not if they have any appetite for free money and assets.
>A move-away parent surrenders their right to joint custody. Period.
OK. I could live with that but ideal would be to prohibit move-aways because the children need both parents. Divorce doesn’t change that.
>the presence of an engaged parent has to be regarded as more important than a check. Refuse to allow access? You are abusing your child.
Agree.
>And to be fair, if you refuse to see them, or take your turn – same deal. Something my daughter’s mother was spitefully guilty of once my baby girl chose to live with me.
Don’t agree. Each parent must be allowed to continue to parent their children but punishing them for not doing what others feel is necessary is bad and usually arbitrary. As always, everything the man doesn’t do will be acted upon, what the woman doesn’t do will be no biggy!
>Choice for men. Or a removal of choice for women. Whatever you pick, it has to be equal. If the latter, no more drop off points, no more putting a child up for adoption without the consent of the father, the father gets first chance if she doesn’t want it, etc. etc. etc. Refuse to name a father? No welfare? Don’t take care of the kid? Not just a loss of rights as a parent, madam, but criminal charges.
Agree 100%.
>Parenthood and marriage are contracts. Those who break the contract should be penalized. Those who don’t – should not. You propose the stick alone. This will not work. You need the carrot, too. And at a certain point it is right and proper for the government to enforce contracts.
Contract? Where? There is no contract, just an arrangement whereby a woman and judge can enforce anything upon a man as long as the result is in the financial “best interest” of the woman, children, and government. A contract requires agreement to its provisions ahead of time by both parties. Under the present system of marriage and parenting, nothing is agreed to by either party ahead of time, unless there is a written premarital agreement, and even that can be voided if it’s not in agreement with what the woman and judge feels is financially “fair” to the woman and children at divorce time.
>I’m not interested in creating a reverse feminist state.
Neither am I. But I am for a patriarchy. I am more for a benevolent dictatorship, run by men. And I believe that both men and women would be better off as a result. Women would get more if they couldn’t steal from men to get what they desire in life
.
Whew! I quit!
July 18th, 2007 at 5:28 am
What I stated, in effect, is that women should be held responsible for their actions and choices in life just like us men are. This business of the government allowing women to make whatever choices they wish at every stage of the game and supporting her no matter what regardless of her previous choices, has got to stop.
PEOPLE should be accountable for their actions, not other’s bad behavior.
This place is full of men who have chosen poorly on women – do you believe then that they got what was coming to them?
If women knew they would be held responsible for choosing a bad boy as so many women do and they can no longer expect the government to step in as her primary protector in life and force her man at gunpoint or by threat of jail to act in a way that’s contrary to his nature, do you really think women would continue to act in the same way as they do now? Do you believe that 40% of all births in this country would continue to be born to single mothers? What percentage of women marry men with the expectation of changing him because he isn’t really what she wanted but is “close enough” for the moment while planning on getting the rest through whining, withholding of sex and government intervention if all else fails.
Okay – the law of consequence I agree with.
If a woman knows that she will lose her parental rights upon admitting she chose to have children by a man who doesn’t want them or want to support them and we did away with forced child support, do you really believe she would still make THAT choice? Or do you suppose she more likely choose a slightly different course of action, like having children with a man who wants them?
There is a difference between not having forced child support, and losing parental rights.
The bottom line is that we need to get the government out of our marital and parental lives and that’s the only way marriage to an American woman would be amenable to me.
And having the government step in and remove parental rights doesn’t get the government out of it, does it?
And the only way we can do that is to immunize mothers and fathers against the fighting that invariably comes with the marital territory. We must take the fighting out of divorce by design. We must require both parents to resolve their problems between themselves and ultimately both be held responsible for their actions and choices in life, including women.
Never going to happen; what you are talking about is a case of letting the best become the enemy of the good.
What will come closest, first, is allowing fault based marriage to exist side by side with no fault. For people such as you describe, the no fault option will be available – you work out your decree, the court rubber stamps it. If not, the court will decide, and it will decide basedd on fault. Cheat on your spouse? Fault. Spend like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse on shore leave? Fault. Assault your spouse? Fault. And so on, and so forth.
If you can’t find a real fault, and you just want out – okay, you can’t keep someone in who does not want to be. In that case, that person is abandoning the marriage – fault.
Next must come the rebuttable presumption of joint custody. You have to have it, because a non-rebuttable presumption will never pass. Anywhere. What you have to have then is the burden of proof squarely on the accuser. You say your spouse was abusive? Get a conviction, first. An ex-parte restraining order on the grounds of “:fear” is insufficient, and inadmissable (except perhaps as evidence that you make unfounded accusations, and might be the unfit parent.)
A move-away parent surrenders their right to joint custody. Period.
The presence of an engaged parent has to be regarded as more important than a check. Refuse to allow access? You are abusing your child. (And to be fair, if you refuse to see them, or take your turn – same deal. Something my daughter’s mother was spitefully guilty of once my baby girl chose to live with me.
Choice for men. Or a removal of choice for women. Whatever you pick, it has to be equal. If the latter, no more drop off points, no more putting a child up for adoption without the consent of the father, the father gets first chance if she doesn’t want it, etc. etc. etc. Refuse to name a father? No welfare? Don’t take care of the kid? Not just a loss of rights as a parent, madam, but criminal charges.
I have plenty of sympathy for men who are the victims of “whoopsie (wink)!” pregnancies. Birth control is a no-brainer. I have no sympathy, though, for a man (or woman)who willingly creates a child, then decides to change their mind or the terms later.
But if they do that, they – AND THEY ALONE – should pay the price for it. Parenthood and marriage are contracts. Those who break the contract should be penalized. Those who don’t – should not. You propose the stick alone. This will not work. You need the carrot, too. And at a certain point it is right and proper for the government to enforce contracts.
There is nothing wrong with the government enforcing contracts. What is wrong now is the selective and half-assed, and biased way in which it enforces some provisions and not others.
And this should apply to men and women alike. I’m not interested in creating a reverse feminist state. I’m all for taking bad and misandrist laws and applying them to women too. The laws are there, now, and you aren’t making new ones. By all means, shove it down their throats sideways, and the cries of their pain will do more than anything to spur their repeal – however sad the case is, it is true that until women suffer, nothing will change. So instead of wishing for a perfect world which will never come to pass, use the imperfections.
Creating laws which are just as bad, in reverse? No – it’s not solving problems. It’s just trading them for new ones.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
If the sexist feminists are so bad, why copy their strategy and act like sexist MRAs? It just helps build a case against the movement for true equality. If the sexist feminists are so bad, why copy their strategy and act like sexist MRAs? It just helps build a case against the movement for true equality.
Because the vast majority of women do not want “true equality”.
Traditional women want to retain the usual perks of being a woman: staying home and taking care of the children; a lifetime of support via husband/alimony/child support; having doors opened for them; immunity from military conscription; etc. If you do not believe this, then read any of the conservative women’s websites.
As for feminists, they want a situation in which women have the privileges — look at their advocacy of VAWA, rewriting of the legal code to favor women over men, their refusal to demand that women be drafted, etc., etc.
The problem is in assuming that women’s political struggle is a struggle for equality. Like most political struggles, it is a struggle for power. Men flounder about trying to claim “sexism”, but women want sexism insofar as it favors them.
I highly recommend reading James Burnham’s classic, “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom.” It was a ground breaking work on how political movements use the rhetoric of equality, freedom, liberation, etc., as a mask for their true goal, which is the seizeure of total power.
Burnham, by the way, was one of George Orwell’s muses.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I have been saying the same thing here myself. My analogy was: If you want to be a fisherman move to the coast not Arizona. If you want to find a good woman-go where there are plenty of good women. Start by getting outside of the U.S.. Or simply wait your entire life here trying to find that rare gem.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I will bury a pot of gold at the foot of a tree… you sir can tie a yellow ribbon on that tree, and can have the gold the next day if you dig it up. i will not dig up the gold, nor touch the tree or ribbon. its all yours in the morning.
the next day when you return, you will find that i have tied a yellow ribbon to every tree in the forest.
will you spend your life searching for the pot of gold you KNOW is there, or will you consider the time better spent finding your own pot of gold someplae else?
i tried american women… i got the kind of greif that only the 10 oclock news covers… for 15 years i tried to find a decent one.. and i come from a great family, and such… no luck.
today i am married.. she is beautiful (to me), feminine, full of good morals and values, has old fashioned american ideals, hasnt slept around, has a great family that i feel a part of (to the point of invigthign them on vacations), loves my family, and on and on…
my secret? easy… i stopped looking for gold in a chalk mine… i found that if you want gold, its better to go where there is a lot of gold… that way, you might actually find some. this is why everyone went to california for the gold rush, it made no sense to pan for gold in NJ when there was more in california to be had.
now this doesnt mean that there isnt gold everywhere… of course thats true. but at least in california i only have to dig an average of a few tons to get an ounce.. while in other places i can dig a thousand tons and have less.
the largest diamond mine in arkansas was discovered by a find in a garden… i bet that kid would tell everyone to look in their gardens for a diamond the size of a baseball and was used for a paperweight… but i will also bet that no one will find one in my lifetime either.
before you advise men to go out there and risk their lives to prove your point. why dont you publish a list of 20 or so instructions in how to test and determine that you have real gold and not the more common iron pyrite…
otherwise, your sending 70% to their doom, to prove that in the remaining 30% there is a few happy souls.. better to rule alone in pergatory than be ruled by a fury in hell… for hell hath no fury… and that says a lot!
July 16th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Polishknight-
you once asked me what I meant by “pussified men”. Your example above of a Stuart Smalley-type male is a perfect example. There are others occassionally at MND. Some are women masquerading as males.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Know who your friends are… and aren’t!
Denis, here’s a perfect example of a Stuart Smalley:
“Mjaybee said, [...]
That’s society in America today – ranting about getting screwed over isn’t going to help change it, and will alienate a good portion of those women who might otherwise want to help you out if you do decide to take action to change it.
If the sexist feminists are so bad, why copy their strategy and act like sexist MRAs? It just helps build a case against the movement for true equality.
July 14, 2007″
News flash, Mjaybee, women don’t WANT “true equality”. Most want and crave men to continue protecting and supporting them. Feminism bashes men as oppressors in order to justify victim privileges for women in the form of entitlements and to continue enjoying the traditional support men gave them freely in the past.
Trying to move towards “true equality” when EVERYTHING shows that it’s impossible is insanity. How many times do you have to go out in the rain without an umbrella before realizing that the rain isn’t going to stop just because you want it to?
If women get “shocked” at the things MRA’s are saying then they’re just feminist apologists in drag who want to get men to shut up and stop complaining. And if they have a motivation to do that, it must imply that men discussing things among themselves is a threat. If men stop supporting feminism AND most of the people in power or supporting power are men, well, they get the idea.
You should too. We don’t need feminist apologists to pat us on the head.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Ed’s daughter
Hello Ed. I just had a similar conversation with a Spaniard (living in the states) who has 3 daughters and he was shocked when I told him that spending money on a university education for them was like taking a rental car to the car wash.
I explained that a woman with a high income/education largely did not use their degree (he agreed since his wife was staying at home and looking after the kids) and if they did become successful it was just as likely it would hinder them in finding a mate.
The “Stuart Smalleys” that Denis refers to are all over the place who not only marry shallow-unreliable American women but then work like dogs to put their daughters through university systems that are a TOTAL WASTE and only indoctrinate them to become commie man haters.
He asked what I want to do if I have a daughter. Simple: Send her abroad to an inexpensive university in Eastern Europe or Latin America. Or… to a local community college to learn how to be a dental assistant, veterinarian, or paralegal. Get her married off to a decent man by the age of 25 and start counting grandchildren.
Red stater men have a tremendous amount of power and considering the panic attacks the feminists have had over us marrying foreign women, we haven’t begun to flex our muscles yet. Imagine if most of us sent our lovely women out of the system…
July 16th, 2007 at 3:17 am
conservativation is quite right. ‘Twas always so, and why?
He says: “Ive said before, a man can almost never win an argument with a woman. Even when the issue goes his way, she conceded the action but not the matter. The level of frustration that men experience when daily negotiating the gauntlet of female reasoning leads them to simply aviod the discourse and yield leadership.”
Women back in the 60s and 70’s, led by criminally vicious women like Dworkin and Greer, said, ‘Men hate women’, and hardly any women talked them down from their new-found imaginary victimhood. Men then, as now, as always, tried to find the peaceful way. Manginas doubled in number by the week.
The fact of the matter is that men have always loved and cared for women much more than women have loved and cared for men. Men have always gone the extra mile to keep the peace. And women have been quick to take advantage. Manginas are made, not born.
Women take advantage of men whenever they can. The War of the Sexes has always been a one-sided war with men trying to negotiate a peace with emotional terrorists.
And this is what the modern women have become. Terrorists.
Only the wicked love terrorists. Men have had enough trying.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
One more thing, gentlemen.
If you have a deep, intense desire for unnecessary pain and suffering, and we all know that some of you out there like that kind of thing, I highly recommend american women for permanent relationships.
They are a masochist’s dream cum true.
In fact, it appears that a majority of these creatures are themselves hard-core masochists which explains their intense desire to be slapped around and screwed/abandoned by “bad boys”.
Who knows? If you get lucky, after her thug boyfriend impregnates her, maybe she will let you support her, her weight gain, and her kid, until she decides to call the police and say, “He threatened me…..”
July 15th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“Foreign men (and women) commonly joke about the selfishness and even viciousness of American women.”
———————————————————————————————–
Gentlemen, reputations are earned and that goes double for bad ones. I have also heard foreigners discuss american women in this manner, and I completely agree with them.
The best thing to do is completely write-off american women. If you can afford to travel, you will be doing yourself a favor to go foreign.
Let’s face it, the average american feminazi isn’t worth the time, trouble nor headache.
Nor is it worth the time, trouble and headache trying to sort out which of them are closet man-haters and which are not. Save yourself a lot of time if you are looking for a permanent relationship.
However, if you are just looking for sportsex……..