lumigan tramadol tadalafil

The Depths of Male Disposability

2009-09-02
By

Male disposability is so deeply ingrained into the very fabric of our culture, that we rarely even think about it. And yet, it is one of the defining features of what it means to be a man. Throughout history, men have filled the roles and performed the tasks that demanded that you risk your life. The only risk that couldn’t be removed from women was that of child-bearing, but apart from that women have more or less always been kept out of harms way.

Now let’s not make the mistake that many contemporary feminists do and start talking about women’s evil oppression of men or something along those lines. Men being defined as the disposable sex was not a personal thing nor was it some kind of gender war (there wasn’t any room for a gender war in historical times). Women simply needed to be kept safe to ensure that the next generation was large enough to sustain or increase the influence of the community in question.

Nevertheless, it is important to analyze and raise awareness around male disposability, because it is truly the missing link of the gender discourse. As the early feminists put forward the very just demand that men and women be given equal rights and equal access to the labor market, the whole issue of male disposability was forgotten. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that it hadn’t even been conceptualized, since it takes a higher intellectual development to deconstruct a gender role than it does to notice that men and women aren’t equal in the eyes of the law.

Early feminism was an honorable struggle, and while it may not have been the perfect way to kick off the whole gender liberation movement, focusing on women’s rights was certainly a pressing concern at the time. However, what was forgotten was that men’s rights in the public sphere, had always been accompanied by pretty harsh responsibilities (go to war, perform the dangerous jobs, work all day so you hardly ever see your family). So in one sense women were handed the rights of men, without being expected to share in the responsibilities. Another example of this way of thinking is that feminists demand that half of all board members be women, without demanding that half the soldiers or half of the garbage collectors be women.

So what are some of the ways that men remain disposable?

  • War. In every country where people can be drafted or be forced to do military service, it is only the men who are forced to fight for their country. And even when people sign up voluntarily, it is mostly men who do it (eg. US forces in Iraq).
  • As a (straight) man you are expected to protect your girlfriend/spouse/wife at all times.
  • Dangerous jobs are predominantly done by men: police officer, fire fighter, construction worker, etc.
  • Outdoor jobs are predominantly done by men: lumberjack, oil platform worker, garbage collector, etc.
  • Men still perform most of the jobs where you are expected to work insane hours, and only see your family at weekends (at best).

What’s interesting to note is that feminism often depicts male disposability as a form of male power. The men who work long hours are the men with power. The military is a sign of male power. Being a heroic fire fighter is a sign of male power, and so on.

However, as Warren Farrell says, true power is about having the freedom to shape your own life, and as long as many men automatically choose dangerous professions in order to be eligible for marriage and a family–then men cannot be said to be free. The argument could be made that women are freer than men nowadays, since every young woman knows that there are many acceptable options for a woman (work fulltime, part-time or be a housewife), and there is no expectation of choosing a “disposable career”.

This is not to say that men need to stop performing the jobs that men currently do. As you may have noticed from from my other writings, I do not believe that men and women are identical on the inside; as far as I’m concerned there is ample proof that innate sex difference exist in the brain and in behavior. This means that men may be more likely to continue choosing the dangerous jobs as well as the outdoor jobs. But the choice needs to be made consciously, rather than automatically. Also, society as a whole needs to become more conscious of  what male disposability means. The people who perform dangerous jobs should be adequately paid, and safety measures should improve continually.

I also believe that a sense of appreciation for what men do for society, and for what each man does when he’s a 24 hr lifeguard to his spouse, needs to be reinstated. At this point, especially in Western societies where feminism is strong, the appreciation for male sacrifice has dwindled, and there is more focus on the negative aspects of masculinity than on the positive ones.

The reason that society has been able to evolve so rapidly the past few hundred years, is that male sacrifice and male disposablity has been far greater than male violence or male brutality, something that we would all do well to remember.

Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about gender liberation beyond feminism.

2,159 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • Denis

    “Early feminism was an honorable struggle, and while it may not have been the perfect way to kick off the whole gender liberation movement, focusing on women’s rights was certainly a pressing concern at the time.”

    Excuse me?

    Struggle FOR what? Or Struggle AGAINST what?

    And how “early” do you mean?

    Modern feminism kicked off in the 1960s. See some of the insanity below that feminism has produced.

    Below, we see that one was Al Gore’s campaign advisor, one was a member of the U.S. Congress, some are professors, authors, there’s Valerie Solanas, and there’s even a Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. Many of these quotes are from the 1960s:

    This hatred is insane!

    I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.
    Ice And Fire – Andrea Dworkin

    Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.
    Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students – Catherine Comin

    All men are rapists and thats all they are.
    Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.) – Marilyn French

    I feel that Ëœman-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
    Ms. Magazine Editor. – Robin Morgan

    I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.
    Ms. Magazine Editor. – Robin Morgan

    To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.
    Scum Manifesto – Valerie Solanas

    (Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.
    Against Our Will p.6. – Susan Brownmiller

    We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.
    - Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women

    How will the family unit be destroyed? [T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.
    In Female Liberation – Roxanne Dunbarr

    Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it a Her. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.
    Pornography: Men Possessing Women – Andrea Dworkin

    The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.
    - Andrea Dworkin

    Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.
    - Andrea Dworkin

    The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations – for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right – these institutions are real and they must be destroyed.
    - Andrea Dworkin

    My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.
    The Woman’s Room – Marilyn French

    The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together¦. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children.
    Functions of the Family WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 – Linda Gordon

    When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.
    - Sheila Jeffrys

    I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.
    Former Congresswoman – Barbara Jordan

    You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.
    (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.) – Catherine MacKinnon

    All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.
    - Catherine MacKinnon

    We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.
    From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 – Robin Morgan

    All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck.
    Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000.

    Is this not early enough?

    How about the 1920s? 1880s? Go to: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/

    It had no legitimacy back then either.

    Based on what exactly does feminism have any legitimacy whatsoever?

    It is a hate movement. That’s all it ever was.

    “Early feminism was an honorable struggle, and while it may not have been the perfect way to kick off the whole gender liberation movement, focusing on women’s rights was certainly a pressing concern at the time.”

    Excuse me?

    Struggle FOR what? Or Struggle AGAINST what?

    And how “early” do you mean?

    Modern feminism kicked off in the 1960s. See some of the insanity below that feminism has produced.

    Below, we see that one was Al Gore’s campaign advisor, one was a member of the U.S. Congress, some are professors, authors, there’s Valerie Solanas, and there’s even a Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. Many of these quotes are from the 1960s:

    This hatred is insane!

    I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.
    Ice And Fire – Andrea Dworkin

    Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.
    Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students – Catherine Comin

    All men are rapists and thats all they are.
    Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.) – Marilyn French

    I feel that Ëœman-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
    Ms. Magazine Editor. – Robin Morgan

    I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.
    Ms. Magazine Editor. – Robin Morgan

    To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.
    Scum Manifesto – Valerie Solanas

    (Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.
    Against Our Will p.6. – Susan Brownmiller

    We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.
    - Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women

    How will the family unit be destroyed? [T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.
    In Female Liberation – Roxanne Dunbarr

    Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it a Her. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.
    Pornography: Men Possessing Women – Andrea Dworkin

    The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.
    - Andrea Dworkin

    Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.
    - Andrea Dworkin

    The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations – for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right – these institutions are real and they must be destroyed.
    - Andrea Dworkin

    My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.
    The Woman’s Room – Marilyn French

    The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together¦. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children.
    Functions of the Family WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 – Linda Gordon

    When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.
    - Sheila Jeffrys

    I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.
    Former Congresswoman – Barbara Jordan

    You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.
    (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.) – Catherine MacKinnon

    All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.
    - Catherine MacKinnon

    We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.
    From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 – Robin Morgan

    All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck.
    Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000.

    Is this not early enough?

    How about the 1920s? 1880s?

    Go to: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/

    It had no legitimacy back then either.

    Based on what exactly does feminism have any legitimacy whatsoever?

    It is a hate movement. That’s all it ever was.

  • Jay R

    I can think of no basic precept or factual underpinning of feminism that is not a half-truth, misconstruction, or outright falsehood.

    No wonder it has been so successful. If you are not burdened with fact, logic, and consistency, the sky’s the limit!

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Mike

    “Despite the relative barbarity of, for example, early Christianized Europe, I don’t see how the predominance of an explicitly pious and non-violent religion would fail to have at least a measure of impact on the mindset of its thoughtful practitioners.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with that view.

    As a Catholic – now lapsed – I was forever being instructed by monks and priests as a youngster to eschew all forms of violence.

    But the issue here is with Pelle’s paragraph …

    “The reason that society has been able to evolve so rapidly the past few hundred years, is that male sacrifice and male disposablity has been far greater than male violence or male brutality, something that we would all do well to remember.”

    Let me put it this way.

    If there is ever a serious food shortage in the world, that violence will simply re-emerge.

    And it is science and technology, etc, that will prevent – hopefully – such a shortage from arising.

    In other words, it is science, technology etc etc that has allowed us to escape from much of the (earlier) need/desire to behave violently.

    On a more general note, as an MRA ‘with some experience’, my view is that talking about what feminists are saying, hither and thither, then and now, about ‘feminism’ might be interesting(ish) but, by and large, it will not get us very far – because what is going on out there – in practice – is not motivated by any lofty principles except, ‘serve myself’.

    Having studied – for three decades – the way in which different types of government worked, George Orwell concluded that … “It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power.”

    And we need to wake up to this – because he was right.

    Indeed, if we continually fail to consider the huge, SELF-SERVING forces that promote feminism – but, instead, talk about what feminists are/were ALLEGEDLY trying to achieve – we will **never** defeat it.

    You can argue with the philosophy of feminism untill you are blue in the face, it will not make any difference to those who promote it from the higher echelons. They will simply duck and dive, twist and turn, re-define things, say one thing, then another; and so on – because their jobs, their pensions, their power etc etc depend on keeping feminism alive.

    And so when one reads these fine pieces by academics such as Pelle, it often feels a bit like living in the early 30s in Germany and discussing whether or not Jews are really ‘that bad’.

    “Hmm. Yes. Jews can often be bad, but, on the other hand, gentiles can be bad too. Hmm. Let us look at the research. Let us look at what the Jews are saying. Hmm. And what about this Nazi leaflet? Is it wholly correct? Let us discuss this leaflet. Hmm. I wonder.”

    Meanwhile, Hitler and his cronies are simply plotting to rule over the whole of Europe, and they couldn’t give two hoots about any truths.

    What was REALLY important to MOST of the Nazi leadership was that the majority of the public swallowed the propaganda – by force if necessary – so that they could get on with their own SELF-EMPOWERMENT.

    Well, it’s the same game being played out here – albeit to a lesser extent.

    And this is why, for example, Prof Baskerville is so important, and so effective as an MRA. He is forever talking about the ‘profit motive’ behind feminism – rather than discussing what feminists happen to be saying at any given time.

    Finally, I think that it is fairly obvious why Pelle has been got at round here.

    Not because of his intelligence and his insights, but because he seemed to let ‘early’ feminism off the hook, and implied that it (or its intention) was benign.

    And, to many of us round here, this is akin to saying that early Nazism was benign.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    From the presentation by Steven Pinker, cited earlier:

    In fact, our ancestors were far more violent than we are. That violence has been in decline for long stretches of time, and that today, we are probably living in the most peaceful time in our species’ existence.

    The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon. You can see it over millennia…

    My interpretation here is that the non-violent meme of Christianity has propagated only slowly and over millennia. Now, I know Christianity is sadly out of fashion among the urban and educated classes. But there you are: I”m unfashionable.

    It’s true Pinker offers no records or even conjectures about the decline in violence over the millennia — noting only that the decline is “fractal”, which I take to mean that the rate of violence over time is given to explosive declines and expansions. He offers several explanations for the current fractal decline in violence which began (according to Pinker) with age of the Enlightenment. The “leviathan” argument seems to have the most weight, wherein a system of laws and access to justice is developed and enforced with police authority.

    But therein is the Leviathan’s fatal flaw: its capacity to become the subject of special interests.

    While mentioning the “elbow” decline of violence with the Enlightenment, Pinker admittedly does not himself mention Christianity is a cause of the Millennial decline. That is my personal observation. Despite the relative barbarity of, for example, early Christianized Europe, I don’t see how the predominance of an explicitly pious and non-violent religious text like the New Testament would fail to have a measure of impact on the mindset of its thoughtful adherent. (This despite the gore so often attributed to the Christianity’s warrior sects.) Marking the actual text of The Sermon on the Mount, it’s obvious that it was previous centuries of Christianity that cleared the fields of Europe for the eventual rise of the Enlightenment.

  • Denis

    “People like James (and me) want to hit feminism really hard and to ‘hurt’ it – and so when feminism is defended in any way, it raises the heckles.”

    I too want to hit feminism really hard to “hurt it”….

    This is a war.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Mike and Amfortas

    The rush to defend our new writer, eh?

    LOL!

    I suspect that James’ irritation is to do with the impression that Pelle is too soft on the feminists.

    Now, you (Mike) can put down the decrease in violence to Christianity, but, personally, I do not think that this holds water over the “past few hundred years”.

    What has happened – and ‘new’ – in the past few hundred years is an increasing awareness that, underneath it all, we are mostly the same. We are all cousins. But, in my view, this is mostly due to science, medicine, technology, new philosophies etc. etc.

    And even if Pinker’s notions about violence are correct, it is still the case that 200 million people were slaughtered in the last century. So it is too simplistic to suggest that some *reduction* in violence is the main reason for our ‘progress’.

    But if it is true that Christianity is the main source of our progress, then so be it. However, let us remember that before and beyond the middle ages, Christianity dominated most of Europe quite heavily.

    And, surely, the influence of Christianity has been declining over the past few hundred years, not increasing.

    And so the rise of Christianity over the “past few hundred years” being an explanation for our progress does not seem to fit very well with the facts.

    With regard to Pelle’s view that it is only now that we are aware of men’s disposability, this seems wrong-headed to me. People must have been aware that men were ‘disposable’ – but no-one talked about it – just as now!

    Pelle seems to defend the ‘early’ feminists by suggesting that the idea of male disposability was not even ‘conceived’ of at the time.

    Come on, Guys. This just cannot be true.

    ….

    The problem you have here, Mike, is the problem that you have always had with MND.

    Pelle is an academic. And he wants to tread carefully when it comes to criticising feminism.

    People like James (and me) want to hit feminism really hard and to ‘hurt’ it – and so when feminism is defended in any way, it raises the heckles.

    But feminism is not just about the pontification of academics – which is how Pelle tends to deal with it – on his website – because he is an academic!

    Feminism is about corrupt, prejudicial laws, the desire of government to grow, power, wealth, empires, prejudicial attitudes towards men, Bobbit jokes, family breakdown, poor education, hateful feminist campus rallies, and many other things.

    So you can’t just talk about feminism as if feminism, itself, is merely the sentiments expressed by various self-proclaimed feminists – such as the suffragettes. Besides which, ‘feminists’ say just about everything. You cannot pin them down.

    I would go further, and say that feminism – IN PRACTICE – has precious little to do with what academics are saying about it. It has far more to do with people wanting power and money.

    Now when Pelle racks his brains to figure out what, let us say, the ‘early’ feminists were trying to achieve, he tries to make the assumption that their aims were ‘noble’ and ‘reasonable’.

    But, for example, as James has pointed out, Pelle’s implied view that women were keen to enter the labour marker, and that the early feminists were simply trying to help them achieve this, doesn’t quite pan out when you look at the views of WOMEN in those days.

    And his implied ‘excuse’ for them – that male disposability was not even ‘conceived’ of – does not ring true either.

    So, all in all, the notion that the ‘early’ feminists were simply seeking some kind of justice and ‘equality’ is not very well supported.

    Finally, we know just how deceitful, hateful and dishonourable have been so many INFLUENTIAL feminists over the past 30 years. And my guess is that the same was true of feminists 100 years ago.

    Indeed, if you view feminism as being less to do with “the noble aim of achieving equality” and far more to do with a grab for power – a grab for power by feminists and BY GOVERNMENT, then you will get a far, far, far better handle on what feminisim is REALLY about.

    Even more finally, I must emphasise again, that my view is that Pelle Billing is a star.

    But I think that he should visit angryharry more often in order to expand his knowledge base.

    LOL!

  • Denis

    “The reason that society has been able to evolve so rapidly the past few hundred years, is that male sacrifice and male disposablity has been far greater than male violence or male brutality, something that we would all do well to remember.”

    That’s part of the equation.

    The other-missing part-is that the advance of civilization also rests on the male drive (a natural drive) to provide for his own kin. Men work long hours, men create (in both the material and theoretical realms), as a way to advance himself and his family. Advances in science, medicine, philosophy-which later brought us governing systems (e.g. democracy, legal systems), art (music, painting, literature, drama), can all be tied ultimately to both the creative nature of males and their primal drive to provide for their kin. Men provide the various forms of security needed by the civilizied societies they created. I could cite many many more accomplishments.

    Men have advanced the world greatly. Much to the benefit of women. In fact, these were linked together.

    The greatest benefits women enjoy were provided by men.

    Feminism brought them nothing.

    Actually, it brought them less than nothing.

    Now that the above described link is almost fully severed-the link that ties mens drive to excel to benefit their kin-what comes next?

    -A more hostile world for women

    -The Western world in steady decline.

    -More men deriving meaning elsewhere (away from protector/provider for women).

    I could add more to the above three (each alone worthy of it’s own discussion).

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    Re: James, #20:

    In fact, overall violence has been declining slowly since the rise of Christianity in the west. You might watch this video presentation Steven Pinker: “Everything you think you know about violence is wrong

  • Amfortas

    Pelle is a welcomed new contributor here who has generated a most informative thread of discussion. I am learning a tremendous amount even as I contribute myself.

    It is common in robust debate that we go for ‘holes’ and attempt to fill them in. This might appear a little rude to some when focused upon too stronly to the exclusion of all the ‘right’ parts of the presentation, but let us not take it too far in a critical tone.

    Pelle makes a very strong case that we can all recognise and agree with.

    Yes, I have been critical too, of the quite usual attempt in arguement to molify the ladies before putting the boot in. It sometimes allows us to show an understanding of both sides of an arguement. But as we see the feminist defence stance is not a good one when so much contrary evidence can be found.

    But…. one thing we overlook is the different perspectives available from different Nationalities’ experience.

    The British experience is different in specifics and scope from the American – we educate one another. And Australian and Canadian etc. The Swedish experience even more differentiated probably. I do not know anything at all about Sweden’s experience with early ‘women’s lib’. Perhaps they do have a case for complaint about rights viv a vis men there. I would like to hear more.

    Maybe a genuine hole exists, maybe not. We may be shovelling when measuring is a better course.

  • Harry

    Good points James.

    I think that Pelle is too soft on the ‘early’ feminists. They knew damn well how disposable were men but, just like today, it didn’t matter to them – nor did it matter to women, judging by that poem.

    Feminism was, is, and will never be, about ‘equality’.

  • james

    @Pelle

    “As the early feminists put forward the very just demand that men and women be given equal rights and equal access to the labor market, the whole issue of male disposability was forgotten. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that it hadn’t even been conceptualized, since it takes a higher intellectual development to deconstruct a gender role than it does to notice that men and women aren’t equal in the eyes of the law.”

    I think that Siegfried Sassoon and other war poets managed to ‘conceptualise’ the disposability of men.

    Glory To Women 1917 – he is subtely sniping at women for their infantile, over-glamourized notions about war …

    You love us when we’re heroes, home on leave,
    Or wounded in a mentionable place.
    You worship decorations; you believe
    That chivalry redeems the war’s disgrace.
    You make us shells. You listen with delight,
    By tales of dirt and danger fondly thrilled.
    You crown our distant ardours while we fight,
    And mourn our laurelled memories when we’re killed.
    You can’t believe that British troops ‘retire’
    When hell’s last horror breaks them, and they run,
    Trampling the terrible corpses – blind with blood.
    O German mother dreaming by the fire,
    While you are knitting socks to send your son
    His face is trodden deeper in the mud.

    So, are you really suggesting that no-one had noticed the fact that men were more disposable; so much so that, “it hadn’t even been conceptualized”.

    Not even by the great philisophers?

  • james

    @Pelle

    “The reason that society has been able to evolve so rapidly the past few hundred years, is that male sacrifice and male disposablity has been far greater than male violence or male brutality, something that we would all do well to remember.”

    That’s a bit of a grand statement, isn’t it?

    How did you measure male sacrifice, disposability, violence and brutality? I can’t figure out your meaning or your logic.

    I think that more people were slaughterd in the past 100 years than at any time before.

    I’d put the great progress down to the arrival of science, medicine, philosophy and various other things – but hardly a reduction in violence.

  • james

    @Pelle

    “As the early feminists put forward the very just demand that men and women be given equal rights and equal access to the labor market, …”

    That paints a rosy picture of the early feminists.

    However, according to David Thomas …

    ……..

    [In the UK] The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, “a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure.”

    ….

    Were women really seeking to work when the suffragettes were in action?

    It doesn’t look like it.

    In the USA …

    In 1936, a Gallup poll asked a national sample, “Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said she should not.

    ….

    Overall, it seems that feminists were NOT simply trying to address the concerns and desires of women when it came to the labour market.

  • Tarrou

    Reminds me of the old infantry sergeant’s saying:

    “We, the unwilling, led by the incompetent, have been accomplishing the difficult with so little for so long that we are now prepared to attempt the impossible with nothing.”

  • http://www.pellebilling.com Pelle Billing

    Thanks for the comments and kind words everyone, I’m very pleased to be able to share my work here. I’m grateful to Paul and the leadership of MND for giving me this opportunity, and I’d also like to thank Amfortas for “discovering” my work.

    The comments are really of a high level here, which inspires me greatly.

    A quick note to Harry: I think you misinterpret my stance. The core of my work is that the male gender role has never been better than the female gender role, they have simply been different, with different pros and cons for each role. Apart from that, I very much enjoyed your long comment. I will also concede that I could have been clearer about my opinion on early feminism. To the extent that they were saying that women needed to have access to the public sphere, then it was an honorable struggle. However, they totally forgot about men being disposable and that men had earned their rights in the public sphere by being prepared to sacrifice their lives. So feminism was one-sided from the get-go, and I agree with you that this fact is often overlooked.

  • michael savell

    Agreed Paul,There was an article inthe British medical journal around 1970 which,I suppose was a warning to menIt said basically that women looked for good providers and males they could mould into their ideal.They were not strung up on sex so much as the male .Love was a means to an end.Compare that with the straight men of today who are falling all over themselves in an attempt to get laid and you can see who has the whip hand.All women are feminists,some a little fairer but even they would never give up the unfair rights they have had presented to them by males outside the family system.

  • james

    @Paul

    “When I was a boy of about 10 around 1960 I very much recall that I had the notion that women did not like men but married because they wanted children. … To me it seems that women do not have any intrinsic feeling of worth for maleness other than how much it might be useful to them.”

    Its strange to see you say this, because I have thought the same.

    I do not think that women attach to men in the same way that men attach to women, especially as they get older.

    Also, at the global level, women do not care about the men in their societies, which is why they let feminists and their laws keep crushing men.

    Plus, why are the mothers of boys not protesting about the laws that harm their sons?

  • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Toy Soldier

    I also believe that a sense of appreciation for what men do for society, and for what each man does when he’s a 24 hr lifeguard to his spouse, needs to be reinstated. At this point, especially in Western societies where feminism is strong, the appreciation for male sacrifice has dwindled, and there is more focus on the negative aspects of masculinity than on the positive ones.

    I think this may be the fundamental issue at play. Men may be inclined to do dangerous jobs or they may be motivated by society to do them, but the factor that at least makes taking those jobs worthwhile is the appreciation and respect for the sacrifices those men are making. The lack of that creates a vacuum in which those men suffer in silence. Ironically, while feminists have tried to create options for women, they have (inadvertently?) stagnated the options for men. Men are left with no real choices because no matter what jobs they attain no one really has anything positive to say about men and masculinity. Everything is typically reduced to men should be more like women.

    Incidentally, the way this has played out in society is not that dissimilar from what happens when a society limits upward mobility. People are generally willing to accept a crappy position as long as there remains the illusion that they can better their lives (and the occasional instance in which someone actually succeeds at doing that). However, when a person’s status cannot change, when that person is stuck in whatever position they are currently in, that is when the backlash against the “system” begins. That may explain, at least in part, why men reject feminism almost instantly, and it may explain why societies with a large feminist presence are having major issues with men, particularly young men.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    Very fine piece of work, in my opinion. And equally astute comments.

    It is indeed easy for any person who has been alive in the last forty years to have been affected by the barrage of fake history, bad science and general groupthink of feminist culture. It has, in effect, become synonymous with western culture. We’ve been saturated in it for nigh on to half a century.

    I myself am sometimes disappointed when I see work that reflects the idea that men should be continued to be constrained to traditional roles that are nothing more than a set up for them to become disposable accessories in the lives of modern women.

    But regardless of imperfections, of some uncrossed t’s and undotted i’s, if the message is counter-feminist, it is golden in my book.

    Welcome, Pelle, and here’s to seeing more of your fine work.

  • Joseph

    Excellent article. Entirely lucid and substantiated. There can be no argument about the grievous injury done to men, when feminists walk about a free society over the very bones of male soldiers drafted to war to die at all ages.

  • paul

    I found Harry’s post extremely useful and inspiring. I also find it disappointing, if not to say disheartening, when I hear MRAs implicitly concede to feminist philosophy when they say things like – men might have been bad in the past but we are good now so please love us.

    As I see it women will always put themselves in the most advantageous position. When being the weaker sex was helpful to women that’s the role they demanded.

    A graph of life expectancy of men and women I was look at showed that since 1840 women have outlived men. The graph only started at 1840 and I suspect the result would be true had it started much earlier. Now you show me a society where the slaves outlive the masters.

    Some MRAs make a distinction between women and feminists. I don’t really see that distinction being a sharp one. Feminism must clearly speak to some part of the female state. It can not all be a trick. If it where I don’t see how it could have taken such a massive hold. It could be that to the female men are in fact disposable.

    Now I do have a good memory, particularly for my thoughts and feelings. When I was a boy of about 10 around 1960 I very much recall that I had the notion that women did not like men but married because they wanted children. Now nobody had told me this, and I assure you I was just an ordinary kid playing in the street,yet I had picked up this thought from somewhere. I just think I picked this up for the cultural either.

    Now I forgot about this for many years a certainly did not use the knowledge to any personal advantage. But now looking back I begin to see the truth of this.To me it seems that women do not have any intrinsic feeling of worth for maleness other than how much it might be useful to them.

    So it does not surprise me that once women became able to have children without the need to be with a man that is what they began to choose to do. Now we are only at the beginning but can any of you tell me honestly that you do not think it possible that in 50 years time men will be completely excluded from reproduction and be at best reduced to a peripheral role in society?

  • Amfortas

    Thanks Harry.

    The differences in such uptakes of vote, work, education and so on are small in time and vary very little from one western country to another. What is common to all though is the inexorable rise in the freedom of peoples to achieve and reach a comfortable existence. That has not been helped in any way by feminism.

    I think it encumbent on MRAs to tell the truth. While it is true to say that women have had a hard time achieving ‘rights’, prior to say, 1900, and that men could sympathise with them, so was it hard for men. The FACTS speak but it is we who give them voice. Few give any sympathy for men’s struggles over that period I mentioned. Women in general deny it altogether. Particular women lie about it.

    It is also true that the vast majority of men have, historically, had women’s interests at heart just as much as their own, if not more. The Disposability message that Pelle speaks is reasonable and does not need to be apologised for by giving women – the non-disposed – undue and un-earned ‘understanding’. That too is a fact not sufficiently enunciated.

    The future advancement of free men and women is held back not by any male intransigence or oppression, but by women’s demand for – and men giving – sympathy and privilege well beyond what men get from women.

  • http://shatterdmen.com/ shatteredmen

    Our “rights” are only one side of a coin. On the other side, we find “responsibility” Many want to talk about our rights but few acknowledge their responsibility but responsibilities do come with every right. Of course, the gender feminist know this….they think women should have all the rights while men the responsibly to assure them those rights.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    Ooooooops. My Maths has failed me.

    The correct figures for NOT going to university in 1970 were 92.5% and 97.5% for men and women respectively.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    Thanks Denis!

    And, of course, Pelle; I should also have said that you are a wonderful writer, and the above article really is excellent – as is your website; which I only came across recently …

    http://www.pellebilling.com/

    It’s already on my Hotlist!

    So, please do not be offended by me being ‘nit-pickety’ about the idea that the suffragettes were somehow justified in their quest for ‘equal rights’. It’s just that I know that this very notion (that women had fewer rights) sets up trails and pathways which lead to nowhere good as far as strong men’s activism is concerned.

    At the very outset, this notion implies that women were oppressed for thousands of years – after all, they always had fewer rights!

    And you have agreed with this.

    BANG.

    Men are, basically, sh#ts who oppress women – and women need feminism to protect their rights.

    LOL!

    I would rather shoot myself than accept this point of view.

    @Amfortas

    In other words, Amfortas, the only real difference between men and women when it came to voting is that, perhaps, at best, men managed to squeeze the right to vote out of their rulers a few years ahead of women – which is hardly of major significance in the overall gender scheme of things.

    But, of course, in order to keep up their campaign of hatred, feminists have continually phrased this in terms of “men denying the right of women to vote” – when, in fact, ‘men’ – at the time – did not actually have the power to give them this right.

    Also, Amfortas, this will probably be of particular interest to you …

    According to Walter Williams …

    “In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. ”

    … thus demonstrating that governments were not actually doing very much on the domestic front at the time that the suffragettes were moaning. In other words, there wasn’t actually very much to vote for.

    Another statistic for you … When I went to university in the UK in 1970, only 5% of youngsters went to university. Most were male (about 75% I think). In other words, some 96.5% of young men and some 98.5% of young women did not go to university – which is hardly a gender difference to shout about.

    Furthermore, of course, the vast majority of *rejected* university applications were from men! – from men who wanted to be there.

    In other words, it was mostly young men who were being let down when it came to their career aspirations – the point being that when it comes to, let us call it, “the right to go to university”, it was young men, mostly, who were being denied this right – not young women.

  • Amfortas

    Welcome Pelle.

    Mens protection was to ensure the survival of the next generation, indeed. But today he is driven completely out of the loop and the next generation is sliding downhill fast. 50 million abortions in America alone since the 70′s with men not permitted a say. Population replacement is collapsing all over the developed world.

    That early ‘women’s rights’ were legitimate is gainsaid. What came before and after is more important however. The rise of anyone’s rights was a male drive. Few people had ‘rights’ as we know them just a few hundred years ago. At the beginning of 1800 where it all started, in England as the Industrial Revolution got underway, fewer than 3% of men could vote. Engles started off Marxism as we know it today looking at the dreadful state of working conditions in English factories. The Factory Acts were amongst the first laws passed to aknowledge the awful conditions men endured and attemted to ameliorate them. The Chartists were hanged, beated, shot and dispersed when they tried to get any say in Law-making. Jeremy Bentham started the movement ot achieve ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’. Women gained benefit from all of these alongside the men who were bearing the brunt and laying the ground-work.

    1900. Women got the vote in Australia and New Zealand well ahead of their sisters elsewhere without a single march or firebomb or suicide by horse. And while they were doing that in the UK, only one in seven men had achieved voting status. That didn’t stop nearly a million Englismen dying in battle in WW1 and another 1.7 million coming back from war maimed. Men ‘earned’ the vote.

    As for the world of work, a woman was the Principlal Judge in the Seattle Supreme Court in 1910 while other women were complaining that professions were not open to them. Of course they were. Lies then as now. In the late 1800s women in the UK were attending Universities along with their maids as chaperones. University parity was achieved in America in the early 1940′s – of course not many men went to Uni then either. In the between wars period woman had free rein in all the professions even exploring strange, exotic places and becoming famed celebrities for flying solo across vast stretches of water. Women were authors and businesswomen, doctors and lawyers. OK, they were conspicuously absent from dirty jobs. The glass cellar existed then as it does now. What beasts we men are forbidding women getting their hands dirty. (that’s sarcasm by the way)

    Then WW2 came along and more men died. In vast numbers. Dying to protect women was insufficient though. After, women still complained and ushered in the modern feminist claptrap blaming men for breathing at all.

  • Denis

    Brilliant Harry.

    Brilliant.

    I am truly grateful that you exist.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    My own view, for what it is worth, is that the feminist quest for equal rights – from the suffragettes onwards – was not about ‘equal’ rights. Never was, and isn’t now.

    Prior to the suffragettes, women already had equal rights (more rights, in fact) – for example, they had the right NOT to be expected to do certain things.

    And it seems to me that when Pelle and others talk about ‘rights’ they forget about the rights NOT to do something.

    For example, after the various Factory Acts in the UK – mid 1800′s – women had the right NOT to work in a factory for more than a certain number of hours. Men had no such rights.

    My point is that it only looks as if men had more rights than women because people forget about the rights NOT to do things. If you consider the rights concerned with NOT having to do things, my **guess** would be that women had more rights than men prior to the suffragettes.

    As a general point, I would go further and say that in order to create and maintain a cohesive society, it is men, rather than women, who need to be ‘constrained’ and ‘organised’, and that, as such, if one looks closely enough at cohesive societies it will be seen that men were constrained and organised more so than women – i.e. men had less freedom and, hence, fewer rights.

    Even in the Muslim world, you will see imams talking about such notions suggesting that “it is better than 1000 men be killed than one woman be violated,” and so on.

    Men’s apparent greater ‘freedoms’ in the past were mostly down to the fact that the world outside the home was more dangerous for women. And so it is somewhat wrong-headed to argue that these greater freedoms were indicative of men having more “rights”.

    Furthermore, beyond the control and reach of the governing elite, it is WOMEN, not men, who tended to dictate what WOMEN were supposed to do, or not do, in the past.

    WITHIN the control and reach of the governing elite, it is MEN, not women, who were constrained and controlled the most.

    All in all, therefore, I think that it is a huge mistake for MRAs to believe that men had more rights than women.

    Indeed, whatever power men (or ‘governments’) have had, they have mostly exercised this power over other men, not women.

    Women were, of course, restricted in many ways compared to men, but this – to repeat myself – was **usually** because women were more vulnerable to the outside world, not because men were colluding to keep them restrained.

    When it came to the family, however, women were often restricted in ways to reduce the likelihood that they would conceive some other man’s offspring. But even this benefitted women more than men – because if women were bearing the offspring of ‘other’ men, then no man would hang around to look after them.

    What would be the point?

    Furthermore, and for example again, when women got the right to vote in the west, this is nowadays seen as a step towards ‘equality’ – but was it?

    National governments hardly did anything in those days. And what they did do was mostly concerned with matters outside the family – i.e. in areas where men, mostly, operated. And so when women voted, they were mostly voting on matters which would mostly affect men, rather than women.

    Is that ‘equality’?

    I could go on! – but I won’t.

    I will just say this.

    The idea that women had fewer rights than men is completely dependant upon what is actually meant by the word “rights”. And people who discuss these rights always seem to view them in a way that is difficult to pin down.

    Often the discussion is framed – as Pelle did above – in terms of rights vs ‘duties’ and ‘responsibilities’, but this usually ends up conceding that men had more rights than women.

    And when MRAs do this, they justify the existence of feminism.

    As soon as MRAs say that “men once had more rights than women”, they are on a losing path.

    I quote Pelle; “So in one sense women were handed the rights of men, without being expected to share in the responsibilities.”

    I would prefer something like this; “So in one sense women were handed the rights to do things that men already had the right to do, while men were not given the right NOT to do what women had the right NOT to do.”

    My point is that as soon as MRAs concede that women had “fewer rights”, they have completely justified the arrival of feminism. And from that point onward they – and men, in general – are pushed into a corner – WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

    The feminists are well aware of this kind of trap, and they are also well aware of where it leads And this is why, for example, they even view women murderers as victims. They will not concede that women can be wicked, because, as soon as they do, their various theories (and their impact) begin to crumble.

    Well, the same goes for conceding that men once had more “rights”. As soon as MRAs do this, they are, in practice, heading into a corner.

    Finally, of course, I am not a historian, and, quite frankly, I cannot claim much in the way of expert knowledge about the past.

    But, as a psychologist, I am totally convinced that men are ALWAYS treated worse than women in any cohesive society, and that, as such, it is only by viewing how people were being treated in the past (rather than by analysing their ‘rights’) that the fraud of feminism can be exposed.

    Indeed, as far as I am aware, recognised experts on men’s issues such as Warren Farrelll do not spend much time discussing ‘equal rights’. They look at inter-gender relationships, the power balances, the expectations and so on. “Rights” are not a big topic.

  • Clabbe

    Most eloquent and wise!

  • Arne H

    Thank you very much for that article. We agree, and it is nice to see that there are a lot of people who feel and think exactly the same way.

  • Ray

    “The reason that society has been able to evolve so rapidly the past few hundred years, is that male sacrifice and male disposablity has been far greater than male violence or male brutality, something that we would all do well to remember.”

    Yes, I can’t remember the last time a radical feminist thanked any man for the technological advancements that have allowed women (and men) to move beyond their cave dweller origins. Behind every disposable man advancing technology and human society, was a protected woman benefiting from from male chivalry and male innovations. Thanks for the nicely written, insightful article.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search