Among the many emails I get that don’t support men’s rights or don’t support my take on them, a hefty number of them are from men who take issue with the idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and going their own way.
The common theme among those emails is a short lecture on what men are supposed to do; replete with sonny-lemme-tell-ya-what-it-means-to-be-real-man instructions. Most of them are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud, if grossly posthumous smile.
And curiously, many of the concordant emails I get from women totally miss the point. I just read one from a woman who lauded my work against feminism because she lamented the loss of days when a man “knew how to treat a lady.”
Apparently she thought my objection to feminism was because it kept me off a white horse. She assumed I am engaged in a fight to protect my right to sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring misunderstanding, but she did provide an opportune segway for the correct question.
What if a man doesn’t want to?
(pause for effect)
When all is said and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of a growing voice, not just in the world of Men‘s Rights Activists, but in the world of men collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are sure to form tempests of debate and ire in the coming years.
Should men break with tradition? And in that should they quit expecting themselves to be the financers and custodial protectors of women’s lives? Should they quit paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the role of breadwinner? Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially and biologically indentured in a world where women no longer need such protection? Indeed, in a world where it is men that increasingly need protection from women, as is clear in family courts, the workplace, universities -think Duke- and frequently their own homes.
The answers to these questions, which are, like it or not, relevant now, require some intellectual scrutiny that won’t be found in myopic edicts like “Be a real man.” In fact, I’d argue that anyone issuing such proclamations needs to take a more lucid look at the world they live in.
Women don’t have roles any more, except as they choose to take them on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the dinner check arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others company, so women don’t really so much have roles as they have a choice as to which role benefits them at the moment.
Perhaps carte blanche for opportunism is a better way to put it.
It is the new, but no longer sparklingly new social doctrine of equality-plus. Women now live in a world of options that men could not possibly dream of. They have been granted equal and often preferential entrance into the realm of financial opportunity and independence while social mandates still leaves the door wide open for them to do what they have historically done, e.g., draw sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from the sweat and labor of men.
It’s the net result of feminist doctrine and men’s complicity in it; a paradigm not of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where they are bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women while often being bled dry by them.
This isn’t to cast men as victims of women. All this is enabled, lock, stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their traditional roles, giving women whatever they ask for by rote. By practicing chivalry like a crack habit, and by excoriating other men for not doing same.
In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of collective patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least thirty years ago.
The catch-22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious. The traditional mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as the foundation of stable families and adjusted children for countless generations. It is indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our society and backbone of our civilization are not just tired and overused metaphors, but a spot on description of reality.
That, in and of itself, might appear to be a sound reason for men to just shut up, shovel and sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as though the last 40 years never happened. But that is the problem. The last 40 years actually did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube, and much more likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and pathetically fruitless task.
It is not that traditional roles can’t work. They can for a waning few; those willing to find their way to each other though the modern morass of traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a gamble with Las Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that doesn’t include a license for risk takers to place a proscription on alternatives for those more survival minded.
As long as we deny men choices that women are allowed to take for granted, we will continue to see men marginalized and exploited. As the New York Times just reported, it is possible that for the first time in history that in America women will surpass men in the workforce. And that right soon.
It is a picture consistent with men’s drastically decreasing presence in higher education and punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job losses in the bad economy.
And men are to continue to take care of women and protecting them? There are still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think Elvis is still alive.
When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with a gainfully employed woman with money from their unemployment checks, there will likely be a lot more men, at the very least, saying:
“Hey, wait a minute.”
That would be one giant step in the right direction.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the Publisher of A Voice for Men.
Among the many emails I get that don’t support men’s rights or don’t support my take on them, a hefty number of them are from men who take issue with the idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and going their own way.
The common theme among those emails is a short lecture on what men are supposed to do; replete with sonny-lemme-tell-ya-what-it-means-to-be-real-man instructions. Most of them are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud, if grossly posthumous smile.
And curiously, many of the concordant emails I get from women totally miss the point. I just read one from a woman who lauded my work against feminism because she lamented the loss of days when a man “knew how to treat a lady.”
Apparently she thought my objection to feminism was because it kept me off a white horse. She assumed I am engaged in a fight to protect my right to sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring misunderstanding, but she did provide an opportune segway for the correct question.
What if a man doesn’t want to?
(pause for effect)
When all is said and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of a growing voice, not just in the world of Men‘s Rights Activists, but in the world of men collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are sure to form tempests of debate and ire in the coming years.
Should men break with tradition? And in that should they quit expecting themselves to be the financers and custodial protectors of women’s lives? Should they quit paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the role of breadwinner? Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially and biologically indentured in a world where women no longer need such protection? Indeed, in a world where it is men that increasingly need protection from women, as is clear in family courts, the workplace, universities -think Duke- and frequently their own homes.
The answers to these questions, which are, like it or not, relevant now, require some intellectual scrutiny that won’t be found in myopic edicts like “Be a real man.” In fact, I’d argue that anyone issuing such proclamations needs to take a more lucid look at the world they live in.
Women don’t have roles any more, except as they choose to take them on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the dinner check arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others company, so women don’t really so much have roles as they have a choice as to which role benefits them at the moment.
Perhaps carte blanche for opportunism is a better way to put it.
It is the new, but no longer sparklingly new social doctrine of equality-plus. Women now live in a world of options that men could not possibly dream of. They have been granted equal and often preferential entrance into the realm of financial opportunity and independence while social mandates still leaves the door wide open for them to do what they have historically done, e.g., draw sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from the sweat and labor of men.
It’s the net result of feminist doctrine and men’s complicity in it; a paradigm not of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where they are bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women while often being bled dry by them.
This isn’t to cast men as victims of women. All this is enabled, lock, stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their traditional roles, giving women whatever they ask for by rote. By practicing chivalry like a crack habit, and by excoriating other men for not doing same.
In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of collective patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least thirty years ago.
The catch-22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious. The traditional mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as the foundation of stable families and adjusted children for countless generations. It is indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our society and backbone of our civilization are not just tired and overused metaphors, but a spot on description of reality.
That, in and of itself, might appear to be a sound reason for men to just shut up, shovel and sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as though the last 40 years never happened. But that is the problem. The last 40 years actually did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube, and much more likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and pathetically fruitless task.
It is not that traditional roles can’t work. They can for a waning few; those willing to find their way to each other though the modern morass of traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a gamble with Las Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that doesn’t include a license for risk takers to place a proscription on alternatives for those more survival minded.
As long as we deny men choices that women are allowed to take for granted, we will continue to see men marginalized and exploited. As the New York Times just reported, it is possible that for the first time in history that in America women will surpass men in the workforce. And that right soon.
It is a picture consistent with men’s drastically decreasing presence in higher education and punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job losses in the bad economy.
And men are to continue to take care of women and protecting them? There are still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think Elvis is still alive.
When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with a gainfully employed woman with money from their unemployment checks, there will likely be a lot more men, at the very least, saying:
“Hey, wait a minute.”
That would be one giant step in the right direction.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the Publisher of A Voice for Men.
Among the many emails I get that don’t support men’s rights or don’t support my take on them, a hefty number of them are from men who take issue with the idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and going their own way.
The common theme among those emails is a short lecture on what men are supposed to do; replete with sonny-lemme-tell-ya-what-it-means-to-be-a-real-man instructions. Most of them are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud, if grossly posthumous smile.
And curiously, many of the concordant emails I get from women totally miss the point. I just read one from a woman who lauded my work against feminism because she lamented the loss of days when a man “knew how to treat a lady.”
Apparently she thought my objection to feminism was because it kept me off a white horse. She assumed I am engaged in a fight to protect my right to sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring misunderstanding, but she did provide an opportune segway for the correct question.
What if a man doesn’t want to?
(pause for effect)
When all is said and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of a growing voice, not just in the world of Men‘s Rights Activists, but in the world of men collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are sure to form tempests of debate and ire in the coming years.
Should men break with tradition? And in that should they quit expecting themselves to be the financers and custodial protectors of women’s lives? Should they quit paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the role of breadwinner? Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially and biologically indentured in a world where women no longer need such protection? Indeed, we now live in a world where it is men that increasingly need protection- from women, as is clear in family courts, the workplace, universities -think Duke- and frequently their own homes.
The answers to these questions, which are, like it or not, relevant now, require some intellectual scrutiny that won’t be found in myopic edicts like “Be a real man.” In fact, I’d argue that anyone issuing such proclamations needs to take a more lucid look at the world in which they live.
Women don’t have roles any more, except as they choose to take them on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the dinner check arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others company, so women don’t really so much have roles as they have a choice as to which role benefits them at the moment.
Perhaps carte blanche for opportunism is a better way to put it.
It is the new, but no longer sparklingly new social doctrine of equality-plus. Women now enjoy a range of options that men could not possibly dream of. They have been granted equal and often preferential entrance into the realm of financial opportunity and independence while social mandates still leaves the door wide open for them to do what they have historically done, e.g., draw sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from the sweat and labor of men.
It’s the net result of feminist doctrine and men’s complicity in it; a paradigm not of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where they are bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women, often while being bled dry by them.
This isn’t to cast men as victims of women. All this is enabled, lock, stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their traditional roles, giving women whatever they ask for by rote. By practicing chivalry like a crack habit, and by excoriating other men for not doing same.
In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of collective patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least thirty years ago. Real men would not have tolerated all this nonsense for a minute.
The catch-22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious. The traditional mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as the foundation of stable families and adjusted children for countless generations. It is indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our society and backbone of our civilization are not just tired and overused metaphors, but spot on descriptions of reality.
That, in and of itself, might appear to be a sound reason for men to just shut up, shovel and sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as though the last 40 years never happened. But that is the problem. The last 40 years actually did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube, and much more likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and pathetically fruitless task.
It is not that traditional roles can’t work. They can for a waning few; those willing to find their way to each other though the modern morass of traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a gamble with Las Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that doesn’t include a license for risk takers to place a proscription on alternatives for those more survival minded.
As long as we deny men choices that women are allowed to take for granted, we will continue to see men marginalized and exploited. As the New York Times just reported, it is possible that for the first time in history that in America women will surpass men in the workforce. And that right soon.
It is a picture consistent with men’s drastically decreasing presence in higher education and punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job losses in the bad economy.
And men are to continue to sacrifice for women and protect them? There are still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think Elvis is still alive.
When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with a gainfully employed woman with money from their unemployment checks, there will likely be a lot more men, at the very least, saying:
“Hey, wait a minute.”
That would be one giant step in the right direction.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the Publisher of A Voice for Men.
Share on digg
Possibly related posts...
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 4th, 2009 at 7:58 pm and is filed under Current Events, Economics, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Men and Mating, Sex & Metropolis, Vox Populi.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 3,074 views |
Trackback | Print this page |
Bio available at my website | More from Paul Elam
Stumble It!
It seems to me that the idea of the “traditional” woman closely resembles one of these “housewives of NY city” shows. If that is an accepted and acceptable idea of “traditional woman” than yeah, it would make sense for men to think that nearly all women, feminist and traditional alike, are out there to squash and use men.
To me, that is not the “traditional woman,” the “my sugar daddy owes me,” is not the traditional woman mentality – at all. That is the most selfish, immature, lazy, disresepctful, uncaring, unloving, and materialistic attitude to have. It is worthy of censure. These are the women who have two kids, and a nanny – they don’t work (of any kind, seeing as how, oh yes, they have a maid too), they get their nails done, their hair done, constantly spending money on inane frivolities which their poor husbands break their backs or brains to provide for them (and they are stupid if they don’t put the brakes on that parade!).
What do women like that bring to the table? And how dare the appelation of “traditional woman” be applied to them! They are not worthy of it, in any sense. Granting the way society is now, that women CAN get out there and provide themselves even within a marriage (though it is detrimental to their family) that does not mean that they should. The true “traditional woman” role is to bust a** at home, to be thrifty, to take care of the non-material needs of her children and her spouse. If that isn’t happening, which, under the “gimme gimme” attitude of the misnomered “traditional women” wouldn’t, than the fault is not with the role itself but how it is carried out.
If you blame the role and not the failings of individuals (and there is mass failing going on seeing as how morality has become completely relatavistic), men are going to do the same thing that women did shortly before feminism first began to raise it’s ugly head.
Women identified the gender role as man as head of the family, the leader, the one to make decisions, to be respected and looked up to, as the problem in the equation of marital relations. In fact, this identification was entirely misdirected – the problems weren’t something new – it was the same old weak human nature and sin, properly identified.
If men, in reaction to the success that women have had regarding feminism and the demasculanization of men, identify the gender role of women as nurturers, homemakers, house-cleaners, mothers, etc… as the root of the problem, it can only lead to even more problems as it makes societal reform (implying that there are ideal gender roles to be reached) impossible and further cements feminism into the make-up of our culture.
Men who want to be feared and don’t mind being hated are now complaining about their own success.
Dwc. This is exactly what we are working on. ‘Marriage’ is only one contract but it is the one I am focussing on. We are already challenging the guvment ‘marriage contract’ in courts and winning our first few cases. (Not me personally, but I am about to have my turn.) We have successfully refused alimony and child support payments using Common Law. When men refuse to register the child they retain owernship of the child too. Check out these guys http://www.deadbeatdadsassociation.co.uk and http://www.tpuc.org
Until such time as this is in place young men should merely refuse to co-habit, refuse to sign a marriage license or have children. We will have this all done inside a year. I am about 3.5 years in front of my original estimate which was 5-10 years from mid last year for Australia. The deceit is that Common Law has been hidden.
Globalman
I was thinking along the lines of handbook or charter that gives younger men some straight up advice before they get hooked.
dwc,
about a year ago I started writing a ‘charter’ which I named ‘Genuine Relationships’ with ideas and thoughts about how to provide a framework for ‘marriage’. Now that I know about Common Law it is obvious that two people can enter into a contract under Common Law. In the event of a dispute a jury of 12 good men can determine the matter. Hence we have all heard the term ‘Common Law Wife’.
The idea is that two sovereigns can enter into a contract without the good help of ‘guvment’.
The really important thing is not to register the children with the guvment.
I think we can look back only as far as the industrial revolution to see where the myth of romantic love, courtly love, came into wide use.
Raising children appears to require experience, yet women have not had all that much time through the centuries to spend with the kids.
Could we not put together a set of secular marriage charters?
Every man has different goals. Call them intimate partnership agreements.
Intimate – in the clinical sense means : sharing vulnerabilities.
Paul Elam Says:
“Women are also worthless in the debate on feminism.”
“I have to say that this strikes me as particularly misguided. I won’t even touch the Illuminati stuff.”
“But to the point, it strikes me that women are particularly valuable in the dissent from feminism. The advocates of that voice have already been mentioned here, so I won’t go over them again. But they have presented some of the most cogent and lucid critiques of feminist hypocrisy available on the open market.”
Paul, yes I am provoking a small debate, a little provocatively true. I am delighted to see open minds and not banning. The evidence I present are the facts of the matter. We all know today some 2M men in the US pay child support for children not theirs. We all know tens of millions of men have been stripped of their children, their earnings, in many cases, there very reason to live. So let’s not go into too much detail there. It’s been done to death. We can agree men are being abused.
Yet. All world leaders, including the UN, bang the drum ‘zero tolerance of violence against women and children’. Why? What men are not asking is ‘Why’? It seems men have completely forgotten to ask “Why, who benefits, where does the power go, where does the money go?”
A tough question. “How effective has the Mens Rights Movement been?” No matter how you measure it. It has been a failure. That is not because good men like you have not done your best. Millions of men have done their best. But men are far more abused today than they were 30 years ago and we all know it. Oh yes, they give us out little ‘vcitories’ to keep us going but the trend, as every man here knows, has been increased abuse of men. Why?
Next tough question. “Why has the Mens Rights Movement been such a failure?” Because we didn’t engage the actual enemy. We engaged ‘women and politicians’. We engaged in the ‘political process’ not realising the political process itself was corrupted and controlled.
I posted yesterday a statement from the UNs World Population Council in 1974 in Bucharest where the UN clearly mandated all countries ensure equal participation by women and men. That key piece of evidence, one more ’smoking gun’ if you please, points men to the ‘real enemy’. The real enemy is the hidden guvment who tells our visible guvments what to do.
Feminism is such a small part of what is really going on. If the Mens Rights Movement continues to talk to ‘politicians and women’ it will continue to have failure as the outcome. If the Mens Rights Movement learns Common Law and INSISTS and ENFORCES that mens rights under Common Law are observed we win. TODAY. It is as simple as that. We have all the rights we need. There is no more need to engage any politician or any woman in discussion. Common Law exists. It is enforcible. It is fair. It is just. It is what the Mens Rights Movement say they want. It is available today. Surely this is the best possible news for the Mens Rights Movement? I would even argue that any man rejecting the notion that Common Law is the best solution to the goals espoused by the Mens Movement that such a mans motives are questionable.
Given we already have all the rights we need I stand by “women are worthless in the debate on feminism”. The debate is over if we wish. More debate will not improve our position. What will improve our position is to learn and exercise our Common Law rights.
“It offers up the idea that Sommers wrote a book about how feminism has hurt our boys as part of a scam to appear supportive while harboring alternative, sinister plans.”
Paul. I specifically named Sommers as one of two women whom had actually taken action. I then went on to point out that the list is pretty short. I also pointed out that women who had told me they ‘wanted to help’ would then not do anything and made a generalisation that ‘women are deceptive’. You seem to me to then immediately become a victim of your chivilry by applying that to mean ‘all women’ and then specifically to a woman that I had previously recognised as making what seems like a genuine contribution. Why?
If I had said ‘Men can be deceptive’ you would not consider that to be ‘all men’. You know some men are honest and some men are dis-honest. My point is that the vast majority of western women use deception a great deal of the time. I have found eastern women to be far more honest than western women.
bmmg39 Says:
“Where’d the 500? number come from, by the way?”
Bmmg…just a number I plucked out of the air. My point, which was not contested, was that I can point you to vast numbers of articles and statutes by men defending womens rights but you can’t point me to anything like the same number of articles or efforts by women to support mens rights.
The imbalance is probably 10,000 to 1 or even more. Who knows….but we do know it is massive. With that sort of imbalance it does not matter if we engage more women in this battle. Further, since the battle for equal rights for men is won if only men would learn Common Law why would we need more women supporters?
Amfortas
“As some of the more ‘wild’ talk here shows, the dominant emotion of the MRM is profound disappointment. It exhibits as anger. ”
Amfortas, actually, I was only ever angry that my ex transfered the money that might put my former children through university. A lot of people see anger when what there is is disappointment and sadness. Also, anger denotes continued willingness to engage. What I am seeing a lot of now is ‘indifference’. That is much worse for women than ‘anger’. Indifference means no more willingness to engage in discussing solutions. This is rife in Germany where I live. The German men have worked it out. Birth rates in some cities have plummetted 80%. Birth rates nationally in german have fallen 50% since 1964. The population is falling quickly. Feminism causes depopulation by making men unwilling to engage in having babies. Are you familiar with the Russian experience and German experience?
Why call it ‘wild talk’? Why the negative connotation? My opinion is that men are entitled to speak their minds. I may not like what a man says, but I will defend his right to say what he wants and defend every mans right to make up his own mind and perform his own actions and then be held accountable for those actions.
I am an expert in communicating and breaking through the barriers of resistance to a new idea that all men have at one level or another. One of the ways this is done is to ’shake them up’ a bit by using what you characterise as ‘wild talk’. It is a very effective communication mechanism when used on highly intelligent people who are ‘programmed’. It helps ‘interrupt the programming’. And believe me, we are ALL victims of ‘programming’ and ‘mind control’. None of us have escaped many years of this.
Author: Mike LaSalle
“I will stand by my words. By citing the “Illuminati” as the source of all our troubles, you trivialize the truth by attributing all social causes to the unanimous plan of an elite class of humans.”
Mike, Ok, stand by your words. Many, many members of the ruling oligarchy have publicly stated that it exists. From JFK to David Rockefeller to Aldus Huxley. Presidents and Prime Ministers have freely admitted that a ruling oligarchy exists as have historians. They are not ‘hiding’ from anyone who cares to look.
The Illuminati rely on people to be willfully ignorant and to automatically deny they exist based on no evidence. Exactly as has happened here, you might notice. This behaviour has been programmed into you by their media and education system. Yes, I am also expert in people programming techniques. Pharoes said they were the decendents of the Gods and therefore ruled by divine right. The European Royalty said they ‘ruled by divine right’ until very recently. Example. What is Queen Elizabeth IIs claim to be the Monarch of the British Empire? Lineage. If you choose to deny that these families ran the world until very recently you are welcome to. The history books contradict you.
“Illuminati” refers to those who consider themselves more ‘illuiminated’ through having secret knowledge, with which goes power, and who have been controlling the world for a long time. For those of you who deny they exist I pose this question. “How many hours of research did you do to come to the conclusion that the Illuminati do not exist?” My bet would be ‘zero’.
Who said ‘all our troubles’? Not me. The Illuminati also brought us modern hygene systems, modern medicine, education, social structures. They argue that without their organising influence the western world would not enjoy it’s high quality of living. They would be correct. They also brought us Feminism. For a purpose. Again. This is all well proven. It’s not speculation. I have not met any man who has gone through Henry Makows web site http://www.henrymakow.com who has come away still believing the Illuminati is not responsible for feminism. They all come away convinced.
Making statements like “It is unsubstantiated, and it defies the simple test of Occam’s Razor” denies what is well documented and attempts to bring a technique for informed analysis to the task at hand that is not required. If Ocams razor is applied, it would actually support the idea that the Illuminati exist as that is actually the simplest explanation.
As far as ‘act like a man’ and trying to use it to call me a misandrist? That’s so laughable. ‘Act like a man’ is used in everyday language in english. Men take no offense if someone says this to them. If you somehow take offense it is because you know you are not acting like a man.
By the way…I asked you to ‘provide some substantive evidence’ of your claim. All you did was ’stand by your words’ and attempt to criticise me. Those are the typical actions of a woman trying to make an ‘argument’. I am on the receiving end of those efforts frequently. It is not ’substantive evidence’.
Gents. You can deny that there is a group of people working in concert for their own interests all you like. Denial does not make it false. For those with an open mind I invite you to go to http://www.henrymakow.com. He is the worlds leading expert on this topic. You can call him a ‘conspiracy nutter’ all you like. He is risking his life for your benefit. All the men who know what is really going on are risking their lives educating you. Including me. They kill people who ‘let the cat out of the bag’ and might be believed like JFK, John Lennon and many others you never heard of because they are dead. The list is quite long.
I bet no-one here knows who William Cooper is. He was a patriot. He died warning you of the Illuminati. Shot and killed in his own house because he was the first to blow the whistle that 9/11 was an inside job. Men are dying warning you of the Illuminati yet you discard their warning out of hand. Then you wonder why the Mens Movement is so ineffective and finds it so hard to persuade Men that they are being disadvantaged. Do you men see the irony in that?
Gents, I notice no-one made any comment on my piece regarding the UNs World Population Conference and the UN issuing the mandate that all member countries enforce equal outcomes for men and women.
Don’t you gents think its strange that you spent so much time attacking other things I put here and NOT looking into this little ’smoking gun’? You men are not going to like it. But you have been programmed to avoid taking in evidence that there is a single hidden global guvment telling our visible guvments what to do. I put a clear piece of evidence here and not one man comments on it. Why? You have been programmed to disbelieve it without investigation.
“Women don’t have roles any more, except as they choose to take them on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the dinner check arrives. ”
A question then could be: if men generally find this behavior unfulfilling, then why?
dwc
http://rationalmechanisms.com
As some of the more ‘wild’ talk here shows, the dominant emotion of the MRM is profound disappointment. It exhibits as anger. Men invest such a lot in women; such a lot of expectation to match that emotional investment.
Perhaps more women journalists ( add Barbara Kay in Canada to the list) will be encouraged to speak out against the scourge of feminism if we men let that disappointment show itself more clearly and authentically. It just might attract those women who DO have empathy to join us in speaking out.
@ Globalman
“Women are also worthless in the debate on feminism.”
I have to say that this strikes me as particularly misguided. I won’t even touch the Illuminati stuff.
But to the point, it strikes me that women are particularly valuable in the dissent from feminism. The advocates of that voice have already been mentioned here, so I won’t go over them again. But they have presented some of the most cogent and lucid critiques of feminist hypocrisy available on the open market.
And this:
“They just want to ‘look supportive’. Like everything else with women, it is all deception.”
This strikes me as paranoid. It offers up the idea that Sommers wrote a book about how feminism has hurt our boys as part of a scam to appear supportive while harboring alternative, sinister plans.
Couldn’t she, as talented as she is, execute any such plans as a mainstream feminist with the open door that already exists for such an agenda?
I would like to remember, as you request that “women are not the enemy” but your posts, aside from wanderings into wild conspiracy, seem to amount to little else.
Globalman: “Where is your evidence of this? I know of Christina Hoff Sommers and Erin Prizzy. But the list is pretty thin after that. Can you show me 500 newspaper articles with women calling for equal rights for men? Can you show me 500 newspaper articles with women calling for an end to the violence by women against men and children?”
Other than Hoff Summers and PIZZEY, Kathleen Parker and Cathy Young are among the mainstream columnists who have helped carry the torch for men (male victims of domestic abuse, specifically). Sommers and Parker have written a column or two on gender that I did NOT agree with, but they’re usually in our corner. And that’s not the end of the list; other, lesser-known columnists have gone to bat for men and boys, too, and it certainly isn’t as though every woman on our side have syndicated columns.
Where’d the “500″ number come from, by the way?
I’ve heard it said that women rule the world because they can wait 11 minutes for sex, but men can only wait 10 minutes.
Being so very cynical I am not sure how to comment on the idea that ‘plenty of women are in our corner’ . My main problem is not with counting the numbers but rather at being suspicious that they really are in our corner. It often looks to me that they are just another set of women who would manipulate us differently to the feminist, but would manipulate us all the same.
I suppose to be honest I don’t think the male corner has any women in it at all.
I am sufficiently aware to be able to see that Globalman is correct in pointing at men as the main enemy of male freedom. Although I think when the feminist come to eat up the illuminati they may see the error of their ways, but by then it will be too late. That said I would be hypocritical if I did not say that I see women as the enemy. Though if I was to go further I would have to say I see male sexuality as the enemy. If it was not for that women would be no more than a curiosity. I am totally serious when I write that if there had been one part of my being I could have rid myself of it would have been my need for women. I actually hate being sexual at all. I see no good in it beyond being in a state of permanent discontent.
I will stand by my words. By citing the “Illuminati” as the source of all our troubles, you trivialize the truth by attributing historical social causes to the secret planned actions of an elite class of humans.
Next you’ll be quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
That’s crazy talk. You might as well be talking about spirits and ghosts. It is unsubstantiated, and it defies the simple test of Occam’s Razor.
My purpose in identifying this as crazy talk is to demonstrate that, while this website remains open to all points of view, it does not endorse all points of view.
BTW, you comment “act like a man” proves once again my codicil
for Godwin’s Law, which I call LaSalle’s Law:
“As an online discussion on the topic of human sexuality grows longer, the probability that someone will impugn a male opponent’s manhood approaches one.”
Thus Globalman is also exposed as a misandrist and troll.
It doesn’t look good for Globalman.
bmmg39
“I’m with amfortas: there are plenty of women in men’s corner.”
Really? Where is your evidence of this? I know of Christina Hoff Sommers and Erin Prizzy. But the list is pretty thin after that. Can you show me 500 newspaper articles with women calling for equal rights for men? Can you show me 500 newspaper articles with women calling for an end to the violence by women against men and children? Can you point me to VAMA authored by a woman? I can point you to, literally, thousands of articles by men calling for the end of violence against women and children. I can point you to VAWA which was authored by a ‘man’ if you want to call Joe Biden a man. You can’t point me to ANY of these things. So bmmg39, unless you can back up what you say with evidence you should be prepared for men to challenge you.
My evidence? I have been asking women, for 14 months, to come to http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/asksam/ and talk about how family law is biased and unjust against men. The count who have taken up my invitation so far? Zero. This includes women who are ‘very supportive’ of their new husband who is getting worked over in the family courts. Women who would say they are ‘in the mens corner’. They just want to ‘look supportive’. Like everything else with women, it is all deception.
Women are also worthless in the debate on feminism. Sure, there are some women might be genuinely useful. However, by allowing women into the ranks of the mens movement we will invite ourselves to be infiltrated, subverted, distracted and undermined. There are plenty of feminised men who will try the same too. If we treat this as a military campaign, which we should, we would not allow the agents of our enemy the opportunity to infiltrate and undermine our actions.
Please remember. My position is that women are NOT our enemy. Powerful men are our enemy (as per usual) and they are using women who are our natural allies. The current battle is a battle of men against men. The women are, as in all great battles between men in all of history, not relevant.
Amfortas Says:
“As for the ‘Illuminati’ and a deep plot by nefarious baddies throughout history”
Amfortas, the existence of the Illuminati is well documented. They are quite happy to tell people they exist. Here is a quote from Aldus Huxley from a presentation he gave at berkley in the 60s. The “ruling oligarchy that has always existed and I presume will always exist…”. Huxley knew all about the Illuminati.
There is abundant evidence the Illuminati have controlled the world since Egyptian times. Ever heard of the pyramids? This is a favourite symbol of the Illuminati. If you know what to look for you can see they were around back in Sumerian times as well. To reject this out of hand is merely to choose to be ignorant of something that is well proven.
Feminism is a tool of the Illuminati. There is no room for debate on that issue. It’s a fact. The only question is whether men will do their reading to find it out. The leading authority on this is Henry Makow. http://www.henrymakow.com. While men refuse to believe this simple fact they will have no effect in their fight for ‘Mens Rights’. As far as the Illuminati is concerned everything is going to plan. Whether you believe they exist or not, they ARE pulling the strings.
Let me offer one small demonstration. Henry has written and entire BOOK on this. Let me point you to one of the results of the UNs first World Population Conference held in Bucharest in 1974. From this page: http://www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html#C.1.c
Adopted by the World Population Conference
Bucharest, 1974
“41. Governments should ensure full participation of women in the educational, social, economic and political life of their countries on an equal basis with men.”
You might want to read that again because you might not be able to believe it. The UN MANDATED, the word ‘ENSURE’, that all UN signatory countries ENSURE FULL PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN … ON AN EQUAL BASIS WITH MEN. Just let that sink in. Really, really sink in. Do you know what this really means?
The only way to ‘ensure’ this outcome was for governments to implement biased laws against men. You will be aware that the Whitlam Government dutifully did what it was told by the UN. 1975 as that was the year of ‘Family Law Reform’ in Australia. Simply put, the UN (which is the Illuminati World Government and this is well documented as well) actually controls the policy of all signtory countries. It is NOT the other way around. That is a deception. You might find that hard to accept.
Our governments are puppets which is why no matter what is said the same policies keep coming out. The ‘two party system’ is merely a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy to distract you from the fact there is a hidden secret guvment. That is why it is no use talking to our politicians. I am in possession of documents to Kevin Rudd properly notarised and delivered such that he is fully aware of the full extent of what is really going on. Ditto for Queen Elizabeth II. The charges include genocide. They refuse to respond.
If people here wish to know what is really happening and the broader plan of which feminism is one small part, just ask. My purpose is to ‘wake men up’ to what is really going on. Most men, as you comment, attribute our mess to ‘incompetence’. Let me assure you. These people are extremely competent. They are extremely intelligent. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. the interlocking systems they have created are of amazing elegance and simplicity. I am very impressed at what they have done, I just don’t like what they have done.
The state the world is in today has been planned. Financial crisis and terrorism included. This is why the mens movement has made no progress in 30 years. We did not engage the real enemy. We talked to ‘women and politicians’. There is FAR more going on than most people know about. We have to ‘wake men up’, and fast, if we wish to avoid a very bad outcome.
Amfortas Says:
Amfortas. Great to have your attention…..I listened to your presentation on DV with Christian J. I believe you are in Australia or have an interest in Australia. I have been participating here for a year http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/asksam/ as petersmh. I invite you to join us on this blog and present your views. I have been heavily censored and banned from Sam deBrittos blog. The newspaper does not like the truth being exposed, but some of the men have been asking for more information on the bias in ‘Family Law’. I have been attempting to get men to realise that their guvment is censoring what they hear and to ask why. Men should be very, very suspicious of censorship because it indicates deliberate hiding of important information. Any assistance you care to give will be most welcome. We simply MUST break the media.
“But the Love of Women as a myth? What of the Love of men?”
Jesus is reported to have said in the bible “No man has greater love than he who lays his life down for his friend.” If we use Jesus words as the ‘acid test’ for the presence of love, what do we see in our history books?
You will see hundreds of millions, if not billions, of men who have willingly laid down their life for a friend or for his wife and children. That, by the definition given to us by Jesus, is strong evidence of love. I, myself, developed severe health problems from over-work for many years while my wife sat at home living a life of relative luxury. The evidence that men exhibit love as defined by Jesus is all around us.
Turn it around for women. How often do we see women laying down their life for their husband? For their children? I can not find a single instance in my history books where vast numbers of women marched off to war in defense of their men and children. Can you? I can’t find in my history books reliable evidence that women, at any time, in large numbers, took dangerous jobs in support of their men and children. Even today, women are vastly under-represented in jobs where they might be killed. It is reported that in the US workplace deaths are 93% men.
Where is the evidence that “women lay down their life for their friend”? I can’t find it. If you care to point me to evidence where women have done this in very large numbers I would be interested to read it. By the way, I don’t buy ‘women love men in a different way’. And when one takes a look at how women treat men in divorce court, as I was treated, I don’t buy that women ’stopped loving’ their husband. I am much more convinced they never loved their husband as Jesus defined it. If you have evidence opposing this I would willingly read it.