Response to Change
RESPONSE TO CHANGE
When a person gives a lecture to a group of people the subjective responses usually fall into three categories: 1. “He’s right on,” 2.”Interesting, I’ll think about it,” 3.” Off the wall, why did they let him in here?” If the lecture also calls for action, the responses become more emotional: 1. “I’m joining up,” 2. “I’m going to have to look into this,” 3. “Get rid of him.”
These types of reactions occur in response to most any call for change. The purchase of Alaska became known as Seward’s folly, the development of the steamboat became known as Fulton’s folly, and Marconi’s friends brought him to a therapist when he proposed that voices waves could be transmitted through the atmosphere. These three men also had their supporters else they would not have been able to accomplish what they did, and there were those who were in the middle waiting to see which way events would go. Whether pro-evolutionists or anti-evolutionists, each side has the same three mixes of responses.
When the change suggested is societal or religious, the responses become even more emotional. Change becomes equated with heresy, and our society has a practice of burning heretics at the stake or doing them in some other way. Machiavelli described the difficulty in making societal change as follows, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”
The introduction of a new order of things threatens people’s belief structures and their sense of security. People want their circumstances to change, but they do not want to change. I have an acquaintance in his mid thirties who suffers from diabetes, and I suggested that he change his diet. His response to me was, “I’m not giving up my pasta and pizza.” He wanted a change in his health condition, but he did not want to change his eating habits. People are secure in their value structure; they just don’t like the negative results they produce.
The heroes of the American Revolution fall into category one of the opening paragraph, the Tories fall into category two, and the Loyalists fall into category three. Early American Revolutionaries were ignored by the Loyalists, and tolerated by the Tories; eventually as the message of the Revolutionaries gathered in strength more of the Tories were won over and the Revolution took place.
This natural reaction for a call to action has its benefits, for the resistance provided by category three causes those in category one to refine their views and hone their presentations so that those in category two receive greater understanding and then move into category one. Also, the vileness, abusiveness, and disrespect of the extremists in category three produce a defense of category one thinking within the ranks of category two. I believe this is how most change comes about and confirms the words of Gandhi quoted by one commentator, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
The past few weeks my message received the natural reaction described above. It has been a healthy exchange and indicates the consideration of a new viewpoint and activity. I expect that this type of response will continue as I propose fundamental changes, not only in our condition, which most of us want, but also in our value structure and the way we act, which most do not want.
Feminism, increased government intrusion into our private lives, and the emasculation of men are all symptoms of our value structure. Until there is a change in the unseen, the seen will continue to get worse.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Possibly related posts...
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
I think that’s enough bickering. Please use this space to post serious responses only.
And you, MMX, are still behaving like a pimp.
MMX, I’m not jealous of EG. I just think he’s a fool and I’ve made that clear. You are imputing motives once again and that makes you look stupid and dishonest.
MMX, YOU are the one repeating the same tactics over and over you liar. If you keep blowing smoke you can expect me to keep pointing it out, you liar. And only an idiot would think that you are winning the debate.
tom…you seem to have some cognitive dissonance… lets try this again!!
..maybee one of these days you’le get a chance to appologize to all the men who have been falselly put in jail because of the anti-male hysteria that you are promulgateing!!
This is not so much the answer I expected :S
But I guess masculinity is by him defined as the heavy fysical jobs, the jobs in business with high status, and being the boss at home.
Now that much men have fallen in the trap of over-controlling emotional/violent behaviour, none of these are really fit for the here debated EG-paradigm of masculinity: which basically comes down to ’seeding’: leading, pioneering, abstract thinking/inventing.
I do actually personally believe all is inside me, in form of what we call, is analogous to, instinct.
I just has to be unlocked.
I don’t regard myself as a drone who needs to be ‘programmed’ by ’science’.
To Scottkirk (30.) – Gynocentricism DECREASES with feminism, as more women leave their traditional centres of power and anonymity, in the home. ‘Patriarchy’ is gynocentric, as it keeps women at home, and in power. Equality shares.
To Scottkirk (31) – Gender feminism is all about choices for women. MRAs should be promoting choices for men.
To Scottkirk (32) – men were falsely jailed under anti-feminism as well as during feminism, as I’ve explained before, the legal principal of Femme Covert saw men put in gaol for the crimes of their wives (as wives were deemed to have no personal agency).
To MMX (36.) – You too seem content to feminize the enemies of your argument.
If you guys don’t believe in books, then what am I going to learn from debating you?
Do you think you just instinctively know better than those gender researchers among us who’ve taken the effort to read books?
How traditionally masculine or feminine would you say ignorant self-righteousness is?
I have completed my experiment in attempting to converse with the anti-feminist natives, on MND.
Read some books, y’all.
Tom.
infidel – No matter how many times you accuse me of blowing smoke, you are still behaving like a jealous man who can only be happy if “EGism” is eliminated from the face of the earth.
But neither of these are true. For one thing, you won’t be happy; you’ll just find another crusade to nitpick against. And, for another thing, Elder’s message won’t be eliminated from the earth.
So you’re losing on both fronts, yet repeating the same tactics over and over again.
tocg – “In your falsely dichotomous opinion, is ‘the female way of doing things’ the scientific way, or the Luddite way? Which are you? ”
No matter how I answer this question. your post, #5, was still an example of the female perspective. You want to pit Elder against your favorite author to see who comes out on top. This is an example of belief, as Elder has pointed out before. You want every set of ideals to fight each other, so that you can determine which one you believe.
But Elder insists that men must lead from the will. Will is the opposite of belief, because it doesn’t wait for materialistic proof, but rather proceeds with what is right before trying to prove it to everyone else.
Belief = feminine. Will = masculine.
————————————————————-
“You diss science, then give a science-based half-truth about tree-dwellers. There are many ways primate males can secure a mate, including social networking skills, cunning, and in the case of human males, wit.”
I don’t diss science at all. My background is in biology and chemistry. And I use the scientific method in my teaching business. But I do call feminine behavior what it is, and masculine behavior what it is. When you behave in an overtly feminine manner, I’ll observe it and mention it. If you own up to it like a man, I’ll notice. But if you dance around the issue like a woman, I’ll notice that, too.
By the way, if you were hnest, it’s not just primates which display those gender mating patterns I mentioned earlier. It’s pretty much a guarantee across the vast majority of species. Males assert their dominance, while females kick tires. And there’s nothing dishonest about noting which tactic you insist upon.
———————————
” Females humans are not always looking for dominant (alpha males) – rather, for the majority of the month, they compromise, looking for (a more faithful) provider male.”
Yes, I’ve heard that one. Guess what? You still behaved like a female primate by pitting your favorite author against Elder’s message.
——————————
“If she’s cheating on you for three days a month, you’re not her alpha male. If she’s cheating WITH you for three days a month, you’re her alpha male.”
So, the best man for her is the one she spends the least amount of time with? How about this? Alpha male relationships are only possible when the woman doesn’t cheat! The moment a woman cheats, she admits that neither of the men were alphas – not the supportive husband she sleeps and not the hot biker guy she cheats with!
Please don’t espouse senseless theories anymore. Alpha males can only be revealed when the woman is faithful. Everything else is non-alpha.
MMX, you are blowing smoke again (#33).
MMX, I’m not excusing Tom’s behavior or speaking for him. He his capable of explaining himself. Don’t tie in what I said with what Tom said. All I said was don’t base you behavior on what monkeys do. Don’t read too much into things.
MMX said: “As men, we take responsibility for our own actions.”
If so, why don’t you admit you were wrong.
infidel – “MMX, is it ever justified to follow a woman (EG in your analogy) around the rest of her life and do her speaking for her, and try to get people to date her? ”
Asking this question doesn’t absolve you of your guilt. Nor does it justify the continuation of your actions. As such, I don’t have to give it any serious thought.
As men, we take responsibility for our own actions. As infidel, infidel seeks call everybody else out, without allowing them the same privilege.
“Do you seriously believe that people should behave like monkeys? I’m not interested in behaving like a male OR female primate. Humans are supposed to rise above that level.
How does tom rise above that level by behaving like a female primate? He obviously wants to pit Elder against his favorite gender theorist. That’s how women decide which man is more dominant. “Oh sure I’m dating Johnny, but I deliberately flirt with Jimmy just to see how Johnny handles it. I’m rooting for Johnny a lot, but I wouldn’t mind if Jimmy won.”
You obviously excuse the lowly behavior of people who dislike Elder’s message, simply because you don’t like Elder’s message. And, as such a partial judge of right and wrong, your moral compass is so twisted that you’re not worth taking seriously.
“MMX, prior to feminism, who has written more books and done more studies, men or women?”
The number of books written over the centuries do not excuse either your or tom’s feminine behavior.
tom..maybee one of these days you’le get a chance to appologize to all the men who have been falselly put in jail because of the anti-male hysteria that you are promulgateing!!
tom..feminism doesn’t just need working on!! modern gender feminism is like a venereal disease!!
tom of covent garden…I was begining to wander where our gyno-centric apologists took off to…glad to see youre back with us!!
MMX said: “Standing behind a book, a study, or whatever is, quite simply, a perfect mirror of the female way of defining manhood.”
That’s EGism for ya. Refute all information. Unless it comes from EG.
MMX, prior to feminism, who has written more books and done more studies, men or women?
MMX, (20.) – In your falsely dichotomous opinion, is ‘the female way of doing things’ the scientific way, or the Luddite way? Which are you?
Are you dominant, MMX? … posting on MND regularly?
You diss science, then give a science-based half-truth about tree-dwellers. There are many ways primate males can secure a mate, including social networking skills, cunning, and in the case of human males, wit. Females humans are not always looking for dominant (alpha males) – rather, for the majority of the month, they compromise, looking for (a more faithful) provider male.
If she’s cheating on you for three days a month, you’re not her alpha male. If she’s cheating WITH you for three days a month, you’re her alpha male. If she sticks with you all month round, you fulfill both categories, for her mind, and body. If she provides you with everything you need, you’ve found a keeper!
Scottkirk (21) – you don’t need to convince US that feminism is not perfect, and needs working on, but the constant jingoism makes you sound like an irredeemable crackpot. You seem perpetually ready to sally forth (but seem content to scare the horses off, just in case).
MMX, re # 20. Do you seriously believe that people should behave like monkeys? I’m not interested in behaving like a male OR female primate. Humans are supposed to rise above that level. You seem to be saying that you base your life on what you see primates do.
“Monkey see monkey do” seems to be your approach to life.
Then you use this stupid reasoning to refute the idea of reading books. (Yet you are constantly promoting EG’s book.)
MMX, don’t let monkies tell you which books to read or how many.
You think like a monkey.
MMX, is it ever justified to follow a woman (EG in your analogy) around the rest of her life and do her speaking for her, and try to get people to date her?
Think about how that makes you look. Wouldn’t it make you into a pimp? And what if she had diseases (destructive and irrational false ideas) that you were not telling people about. How good does that make you and EG look?
Your analogy makes you look like a pimp and EG like a prostitute that you are following around and protecting. And if you spend 70+ hours a week promoting EGism, are you living off of prostitution?
SK said: “Infidel’s left brain=right brain is a continuation of his male=female (gender bender) position!!!”
SK, when you make statements like that you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said that left brain equals right brain, I never said male equals female, and I am not a gender bender. So you made three lies about me in one sentence.
SK, we don’t know for sure Joy’s accusation was false. Maybe her name really is Williams. So maybe you are falsely accusing her. Be more careful and you won’t make yourself look like a false accuser.
My involvement was to defend EG because I saw no proof that he was guilty. Search the record and see for yourself. So are you falsely accusing me?
Infidel..you keep calling me a liar…and false accusser..
something smells fishy here??? Were you involved with the joyanna false accussation against E.G??
infidel – Suppose I’m on a first date with a woman. We chatted it up at a grocery store, and seemed to hit it off, so we agree to have coffee.
Unfortunately, during the date, whatever chemistry we had evaporates as we both find out we’re not suited to be together. Would it ever be justified to follow this woman around, for the rest of her life, to scare off any man who may like her – simply because our date didn’t go well?!?
Think about what you’re doing.
tom of covent garden..you have very few “points” worth debateing here!! The femi-nasty…super funding hogs..are going to pay the piper for what they have done!! Were men here, and will use as little force necessary, but the feminst regime, and it’s swath of destruction must be brought to task!!
tocg – When Elder says, “any man who needs a study, test, book, or report to tell him why he is a man has a problem–a very big problem.“, he’s reminding men about the differences in mating strategies between male and female primates.
Female primates always seek to be with the most dominant male, so they “kick the tries” of all the males. Either that or they watch the male vs male battles to determine which man comes out on top.
Male primates, on the other hand, always seek to assert themselves as the dominant males. They kick no tires, because they evaluate no one. They simply act, and let their dominance (if they have it) show.
Standing behind a book, a study, or whatever is, quite simply, a perfect mirror of the female way of defining manhood. “Well, I kicked the tires of all these theories, ya see, and this one was the best and most awesome…”
You’re not going to make much headway here by emulating the female way of doing things…
To sc567 (15.) – Connell skirts around men’s issues, persisting with ‘patriarchy’ theory, claiming it provides a ‘dividend’ for men, but acknowledging some men suffer by it. (Connell is the number 1 masculinities writer on the UK curriculum, but at least he’s in the academy). It’s one of those books where it is very easy to read the MRIs between the lines.
Piss poor. I repeat – Piss poor, EG (6. & 14.). Take some time, think of a proper answer. You’re making yourself look like a stupid Luddite, and you’re not stupid, just ignorant (or in denial) of evidence-based gender research (it seems).
Scottkirk (11.) – Again! You are feminizing the enemy. It makes YOU sound gay, which, if you are, fine, but presumably you’d claim you are DEFINITELY NOT gay, so it just makes you look incredibly closetted, only adding to (the) joke. Whether you agree with me, that constant homophobic declarations are a sure sign of latent homosexuality or not, you keep falling back on homophobia as a defence mechanism, and in no way further your arguments – AND it’s boring.
SK, you are lying again.
EG, any man who needs a supposed guru like you or his foolish book or articles has the same “very big problem”.
@tom of covent garden #13
The author, R.W. Connell, in his book you mentioned first.
I repeat, any man who needs a study, test, book, or report to tell him why he is a man has a problem–a very big problem.
To Elder George (6.) – You appear to be dissing the pursuit of knowledge.
To sc567 (7) – When you ask ‘What’s your understanding of their definition of masculinity?’ , who do you mean by ‘they’?
To Scottkirk (12) – You seem to be exhibiting the traditional lay rhetoric of ye olde anti-feminist orthodoxy. A 2007 study reported here on MND, showed successful couples tend to agree to do what the woman wants. Whether the man is barking orders to the kids or not, it is the will of the woman, on the whole. Remember, women (traditionally) rule by proxy, electing (even low status) males to positions of dominance, to do their bidding. Male dominance is female power. To put it in a more tangable way – if women take a greater share of dominance by taking the lead in instructing/disciplining their children, then the children will be less inclined to view the father as a hate figure.
I’d appreciate any evidence-based criticisms of my original comment (5.)
tom of covent garden…when the feminist’s began their onslaught of anti-male propaganda in the 1950’s..men did in fact move over and the voice of the father became background noise!!
Since then we have regressed to matriarchal barbarianism!!
infidel’s left brain=right brain is a continuation of his male=female (gender bender) position!!!
Virtue you are twisting things.
infidel said,
sc567, I am not commenting on this article and I am not interested in reading it so I don’t appreciate you copying my post from a different article and putting it over here.
You object to the truth ?
sc567, I am not commenting on this article and I am not interested in reading it so I don’t appreciate you copying my post from a different article and putting it over here.
#5 tom of covent garden,
Thanks for getting back to a more constructive way of discussing, I can respect that.
I’m not sure if we are talking about the same definitions of [G/]gender here. I’ve read the page on the first book on Amazon, and it seems this guy is finding himself in the myth of the male job and other stereotypes?
If we get back to the ‘Elder George paradigm’, [G/]gender is not just a ’social construct’, but a metaphysical concept (~ Hermes Trismegistus, Tao).
As said in comment #4, there’s a chapter ‘The myth of the male job’ in his book.
My basic question now: what’s your understanding of their definition of masculinity?
Any man who needs a study, test, book, or report to tell him why he is a man has a problem–a very big problem.
EG suggests society ‘emasculates’ men, etc – In Gender (2002:46), R.W. Connell aims to dispell such talk by citing meta analysis of research conducted from the 1970s to the 1990s using the ‘Bem Sex Role Inventory’ finding little change on scales of femininity, but men scoring slightly more on masculinity scales over time, whilst women’s masculinity scores increased markedly. Connell says ‘-Not, as many people fear, because men are becoming feminized.’
Connell’s book is pro-feminist, describing men’s rights activists as ‘a bit cranky’ whilst simultaneously ignoring virtually all men’s rights issues (that’s why we’re cranky!). Connell might be trying to cover something up with his extremely polite, yet academically expedient pro-feminist stance, so…
… if you HAVE any more recent data sources indicating men ARE sufferring some kind of masculinity deficit or femininity surplus, please post them here – if there has been some kind of male slump of late, perhaps POST-feminism is to blame!
Connell’s book is the key text for The Masters Degree in Gender Studies at University College London – it contains many clear points, leaving itself deliberately wide open to criticism on many MRI fronts (which in itself is a clear foothold for pro-feminist MRIs on campas, IMO).
On the other hand, the key text for The London School of Economics Masters degrees in Gender, is Gender Trouble (Butler, 1990) – any hint of MRIs entirely absent from this book, written in an almost inpenetrable post-modern obsfuscatory style.
I know which book makes me feel better.
This is the continuation of the split-of in http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/07/23/the-absurdity-of-the-marriage-debates/#comment-48164
(comments #34, 37, 38, 52, 55, 56, 58)
You’re perfectly illustrating here what I’ve tried to discourage a while back. You react within one hour. That’s not an indication you have really let it slip in.
Nonsense statement. No value.
I hope you saw I ‘quoted’ ‘right brain’. I never encouraged to switch off your ‘left’ brain, but to tune done the verbal linearity (taking all words absolutist). Again, ‘adapt’ their meanings, by thinking of the concept behind it, like ‘life’.
The central concept EG tries to explain is the manifestation of a ’seeding’ ‘influence’ (masculine), ‘egg providing’ ‘entity’ (feminine) and its result, something new, ‘life’.
I dunno what’s to be achieved with attacking all the little flaws, or things you don’t understand and identify as flaws.
Yes, in the end EG is up to defend himself. I’m just giving my own understanding and similar vision.
Don’t see why EG has to ‘defend’ or explain in this particular case. Just do your homework first, which is very different than you’ve done till now it seems. I encouraged earlier to read a good share of his work thorougly and multiple times. Just like conservativation (I believe?) indicated in a comment recently, it takes time.
E.G. confronts our gyno-centric..anti male paradigm head on..
Elder George,
I’m smiling from ear to ear
You’re right on, just like your book! A paradigm shift everyone should consider.
Table of contents for those in like cat 2:
http://mensaction.net/DearBrothersAndSisters.pdf
And those still having a sense EG is a misogynist:
Chapter XV: THE MYTH OF TRADITIONAL MALE JOBS
Thank you sir.. Those that need to hear youre message are hearing it!!
Historically the transition from boyhood to manhood is when the young man learns to cast off the fears of his mother, in order to see the world through his own eyes. Thats just not happening anymore in a society that chokes ou the voice of the father!!
I’ve observed more and more young men who are stuck in the state of a perpetual gyno-centric fear based existence..