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.
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. | 2,949 views |
Trackback | Print this page |
Bio available at my website | More from Paul Elam
Stumble It!
September 10th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Mike LaSalle Says:
“LOL Crazy Talk”
Mike, then provide substantive evidence that it is ‘crazy talk’ rather than merely call it such. Labelling something ‘crazy talk’ is something women do. Providing evidence is something men do. So, act like a man.
paul Says:
“I can say that 31 years of marriage does make me agree wholeheartedly with Globalman.”
Paul, my heart goes out to you. I know something of what you say I am sure. My parents shared 50 years of marriage and my dad reports he was blissfully happy until mum fell into illness with dimensia. He is now caring for her like a trojan. My parents (and my aunts/grandmothers) showed me how great women can be. But they do not love like men love. I can see that now. After my 23 years with my wife, I am very glad to be single. Date some non-femnised eastern european women. They are lovely.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:50 am
I believe that neither all women nor all feminists are misandrists. I’m with amfortas: there are plenty of women in men’s corner.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:09 am
I am not all seeing so anything I say only has the weight of opinion not the force of gravity. So with that disclaimer I can say that 31 years of marriage does make me agree wholeheartedly with Globalman. Women are incapable of love in the sense that they can reflect back and reciprocate what a man feels.
I agree with those who identify the manifold cruelties and injustices of family law as a reason for not marrying. However, for me this is just ‘mechanism’ and I go further. For me marriage is fundamental destructive and evil. The only good thing to be said in its favour is that it will make death seem like a blessed release. So that is how I will die – twisted with bitterness and cursing the fate that befell me and for which I hating god himself.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:46 am
There are many men in the MRM who do not ‘believe’ in marriage, any more. There are many things that a man ‘believes’ through his life. ‘Belief’ as in live one’s life by. Some are useful some not; some are a disappointment; but at the end when his life is almost expended and all his attributes diminished, what he lives his life by is a moot point. But he can retain Hope. Not for himself, if he is realistic about his chances of avoiding his end, but for others.
I have met several good women in my travels through the MRM. I won’t marry again, myself, as I long ago gave up Trust in women (twice bitten, thrice shy) but I have not given up hope in all women. So I do not advocate an end to marriage. There are some women still that are worth marrying, although they may be rare.
What a man also has at the very end, the last thing he can give, is forgiveness. Christ himself did that. “They know not what they do”.
I ‘believe’ (the mind apprehension believe) that most women know not what they do. I hope that women-in-general, just as men in general can reach a better consciousness.
But the Love of Women as a myth? What of the Love of men? We approximate to love as we can, or as we permit ourselves. Some not very well. I think that in general men love women more and better than women love men. But sometimes it is the other way around. I have known Love from women. It exists. It has not lasted.
Mine has. Despite their failure, I have not failed. I can claim to have loved well. But perhaps not wisely. There is a difference between ability to love and ’staying’ power. I think for most women the latter is their fault, not the former.
As for the ‘Illuminati’ and a deep plot by nefarious baddies throughout history, give me a break. Incompetence, weakness and frailty come well ahead of conspiracy as an explanation for troubles.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:54 am
” ‘Love of a woman’ is a myth made up by the Illuminati ”
“This is one ‘dirty little secret’ the Illuminati and women do not want men to know.”
“To get men to be willing to die the Illuminati had to program them to bond with a single woman and to value that woman above life itself.”
<– LOL Crazy Talk
September 10th, 2009 at 3:27 am
“If your point is that “traditionalist” women no more have men’s best interests at heart than do feminist women, then I agree with you.”
Actually J(/All), after nearly 18 months of looking into this, I can find no evidence that women have ever had the mans best interests at heart. None. Ever. ‘Love of a woman’ is a myth made up by the Illuminati because it was necessary to deceive men into thinking women loved them like they loved women. When a woman says “I love you” it is a lie. What she really means is “I love what you provide for me” but women have learned to say “I love you” because that is what gets the ‘provision and protection’.
I recently read an interesting article on http://www.menaregood.com. It got me thinking. In ancient times, when men might be hunting the ‘wooly mammoth’ with not much more than a pointed stick, it would be pretty common for the man not to come home after the hunt, he now being ‘wooly mammoth toe jam’. More recently, men have always done the most dangerous job including fighting wars.
To get men to be willing to die the Illuminati had to program them to bond with a single woman and to value that woman above life itself. “Women and children first.” Men who were good husbands and fathers like me know that we have a ‘deep need’ to ‘protect and provide’ for our women and children. We mistakenly think this feeling must be reciprocated.
If you actually stop and think about it. There was never any need to program women to be committed to one man. Indeed, that would be counter productive. Women needed to be programmed to be willing to be with any man who would provide for them because there has always been a significant chance that a womans husband will be killed while at a young age. The woman needs to be able to ‘move on’ much more easily so that ‘more children’ will occur.
If you actually stop to think about it…..men mistakenly think the woman loves him when indeed she could not care less about him and only cares about who is going to feed, protect, support her. She has children in order to have someone obliged to support her when she is old. She does not care about her children either. This is why we see women so willing to send their sons off to war and so willing to use children as weapons against men in court when all evidence shows this is extremely bad for the children. Women don’t love children any more than they love men. Not at all. Women have no honour or integrity and are only concerned about themselves in the vast majority. Sad. But true.
This is one ‘dirty little secret’ the Illuminati and women do not want men to know. However, the Illuminati know it. This is why they offer women ‘provision and protection’ via ‘guvment’ agencies in return for kicking the husband out. Women will take that option in their tens of millions. The purpose of kicking husbands out is to cause chaos in society. We are all very well aware this is happening.
The ‘dirty little secret’ is that women have NEVER cared about the man OR the children. This had to be kept secret so that men would still be willing to fight and die for women who didn’t care about them in the least. If men realised women didn’t care about them they would not fight and die for them. Which is exactly the current agenda of the Illuminati.
This ‘dirty little secret’ was really hard for me to ’swallow’. It’s not pleasant. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth. But it is the hypothesis that best fits the evidence to hand over the last 10,000 years or so. Any hypothesis that proposes that women cared for men at one time and then ‘changed’ does not fit. It must be discarded.
Do any other men here realise that from the titanic 80% of men died, 50% children died and 80% of women survived. The women put themselves into the lifeboats in front of the children. I was so shocked when I read that. Now? It does not surprise me at all. You men want to think about that. Think about a grown woman putting herself into a lifeboat in front of a child. When you can get that image into your mind THEN you know the inner workings of a womans mind.
Women say I don’t understand women. Sadly, I understand them too well. I was very sad in what I found. Even more sadly, the women know this dirty little secret….when challenged correctly, they will ’spill the beans’.
September 9th, 2009 at 10:09 am
bmmg39,
If you can separate misandry from feminism, you should also be able to separate the yolk from the white — after the egg is scrambled.
If your point is that “traditionalist” women no more have men’s best interests at heart than do feminist women, then I agree with you.
September 9th, 2009 at 9:42 am
No, not all traditionalist women. It would be inaccurate to simplify either way. Misandry is the enemy, not any particular type of group.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:38 am
So, bmmg39, feminism is not the enemy (and who even knows what that quicksilver term means anymore?). “Traditional” (i.e., almost all) women are the enemy.
Ok. Got it.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:49 am
I am in agreement with poiuyt (if I’m reading that post correctly): feminism isn’t the thing at fault here. As Mr. Elam put it well, “traditionalist” women are the ones who seem to want to enjoy all of those female privileges; they expect men to come in and “save” them or treat them like “ladies” or “princesses” without ever bothering to make the men in question feel like “princes.” They see men as servants, ATMs, and unpaid bodyguards, and then they’ll expect you to be grateful when they say, “Don’t worry, boys! I’m not a feminist! I still expect you to bend over backwards to please me and buy me lots of expensive, pretty things!”
It’s oversimplistic and inaccurate to consider feminism the enemy here. You’ll find decent people AND villains in any group.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Gender expectations are USELESS especially when they’re being ignored by the other side. Would you keep a boring movie on your pc just to have it take-up space?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Jesus, just do it! So say Nike. I mean, that\’s what I did. Forget gender roles. It\’s like I occasionally get hassled by younger women about buying chocolate. Is it for an angry girlfriend? No! Guys don\’t buy chocolate. WTF?! Hello! Actually, we should not only go towards our goals of achieveing equality but we should finally bury feminism and re-establish individual rights. DAMMIT! Just do it, no compromize, forget everything else. And pick more docile women, works great for the next generation.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“When feminists set out to change “gender roles,” they failed to recognize that “gender roles” were also “gender agreements” that existed within a larger social contract. Both men and women gave to each other and received from each other in various ways. In marriage, for example, a man traditionally provided and protected while the woman gave the man a family, love, and sex. It was a bargain, a tit for tat, an exchange of one thing for something else. Usually, both parties benefited.”
Yes, at one time it was a “mutual understanding” between our sexes, a mutually beneficial one at that, wherein the man would still generally work himself to death to support his family, but in return he got there love, respect and support.This is all regardless of whether or not the woman cooked or cleaned, which they usually did as well.
Todays women greatly exudate what they do that is constructive or beneficial.Marriage has become a one way street, wherein the woman has every choice and every benefit,not to mention is completely untitled to do whatever best suits her at that moment. The man has no assurance in marriage, he gains no supportive factor and has to listen to a woman that thinks she is the greatest thing on the planet because she somehow managed to take 1hrs worth of house work and take an entire day to do it, while talking to her friends and complaining about how hard life is for poor little them…If they do ocasionaly cook, they EXPECT to be taken out, or something in return for it, all your hard work isnt enough for them even!
September 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Gents. Lastly. Feminism is merely a tool of the Illuminati to destroy society. http://www.henrymakow.com. There is more than enough evidence for this statement. It has nothing to do with women and rights. It has to do with powerful men wanting to oppress less powerful men. It is the Illuminati that are the real culprit/enemy. I see this mentioned in so few places. But we really do need to get that word out. It is not until men realise that the real enemy is powerful men that anything will happen.
The ‘new man’…what this article is about. Just look at Russia. Feminism=communism and the ‘new man’ you get is what you see in Russia. Most of them are drunks. When they need something they just steal it. Petty criminals who are drunks. These men have been marginalised and alienated so they see no need to work or defend anyone apart from themselves from direct attack. Period. Some try and run businesses and soon realise they need the co-operation of the third group which are the guys who realise that crime pays well when there is social breakdown. All ambitious men in Russia are criminals at one level or another. Putin at the top of that list.
Men don’t know it yet. But feminism is actually good for men. Russian men treat russian women like 3rd class citizens. Women report that about 30% have sex at the job interview to get the job. 100% of women report they are sexually harassed at work. Women are freely available for any man with a bit of money to his name because so many men are drunks. If your wife does not meet your needs you kick her out and get another one. Period. Russian women tell me they know they have to ‘put out’ three times a week or expect to be kicked to the curb. Russian women are flooding into Germany (where I live) trying to find husbands because there are so few ‘back home’. But only the hot ones who stand a chance.
I am a great example of the ‘new man’. I have gone from ‘Family Man’ to ‘Global Man’. I bought my first house at 23 and moved by gf and her small kids in. (We were long time friends). For 20+ years I ‘protected and provided’. I was abused via the FC system and let down by ALL BUT 1 of my long term women friends. Having realised that there is no respect for a father and husband now I created a new identity of Global Man. Western women throw all sorts of insults at me now. GOOD!!
I have a luxury apartment in Germany, another small one in London. I travel for business. In a good year I’ll make USD300K. I only date hot non-feminised women in 30-35 range. (I am 45.) I pay no spousal support, no child support and no income tax because these are all voluntary. I don’t volunteer. I dump any woman who says ‘No’ to me. Period. No questions. No second chances. I have gone from being the archtypal ‘Family Man’ to the archtypal ‘alpha-male’ and male chauvenist because that is how to get laid. I am completely indifferent to western women and don’t care much about the women I date either. They have debased themselves to ‘interchangable temporary distractions’ to me. I have one I kind of like and keep seeing. Since divorce I have been getting at least 10x more sex and lovemaking which is about 100x better. I have lots more money and lots more free time.
The ‘new man’ is one who treats women like the hypocrites, liars and parasites they are today. Never believe a word they say. Never tell them anything more than is absolutely necessary. Never let them co-habit. Just play with them until you tire of them. The ‘new man’ is one who studies hard, works hard, makes lots of money, learns how to refuse to pay income tax because that is just a subsidy for women, and uses his money as and when he pleases. I recommend this lifestyle. Beats the hell out of being married.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“Thomas Says:
September 5th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Where were those “real men”, when marriage, the bedrock of our civilization got destroyed and replaced with the sick farce that it is today?”
Thomas, a lot of us were doing things like spending the night in jail at the behest of our wives. What you might not understand is that many of us had the police enter our homes, beat us up, throw is into the paddy wagon making damn sure they injured us on the way, and throw us in a cell while our wives gloated over their new found ‘power’.
Men are not afraid of women. My wife threw a knife at me. She kicked me, punched me, slapped me etc. Most wives do. We ARE afraid of coppers with guns who arrest us and throw us in jail. We are afraid of having our kids taken off us for no reason. I, like many other men, stayed as long as I could FOR the kids under the constant threat of incarceration to give the kids the best opportunity I could.
Until you live a life where you are doing the best you can for your kids under constant threat from a vindictive spouse who can have you arrested at ANY time for NO REASON you might not want to be so harsh on those of us who did that. It’s no picnic to live that life for an extended period. People say I must be ‘angry’ and ‘bitter’ in divorce. Nope. I am delighted.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I will consider women ‘equal’ when it is socially acceptable to hit one back if she hits me first. Or to hit a woman who is being a real pain in the arse. EXACTLY like it is socially acceptable for me to do that to a man.
Until women agree to be treated like men, they are not ‘equal’, they are ‘privilege princesses’. They do not want equality, they want to turn men into ‘wimmin’ and then hate us for being ‘whimps’. We have all heard them whine “Where have all the real men gone?” We are here. We just don’t like you any more.
I for one am sick to death of feminised women. I have nothing to do with these horrible western women as much as is humanly possible. I only date non-feminised Eastern European women who are lovely and charming.
Western Ladies? You suck now. You are a shadow of the kind of women my grandmothers were. I am so happy to be divorced and be rid of one of your kind out of my house.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Because of the systematic destruction of the social contract between men and women, I see no reason to expected to uphold something that is dead and buried. In so freeing themselves of it, they also released men from any responsibility towards them. I’ve been treated badly by women in general since I was an impressionable teenager, and after one too many affronts, I have turned my back on them. I am all too aware of women’s capacity for violence and cruelty. The Apostle Paul was right, it is better for men to remain unmarried, and to stay in control of themselves and their lives. It took a bad marriage then a divorce for me to realize the truth, namely women need men a lot more than men need them, and since then I have been far happier being alone. Women have nothing to offer my but an early death from either stress induced ailments or violence at the hands of other men. That is why I turned my back on them, and also why I am going my own way, what society thinks be damned.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
@ irlandes
I think you misread me. I don’t think women are stupid at all. What I am talking about are women who will be hit by a backlash 50-70 years after the antecedents happened. These will be teen agers and young women who are just emerging into adult life; an adult life that was set up with social norms they had nothing to do with forming, but were just taught was normal.
The sins of the mothers will be visited on the daughters. It needs to happen, but I don’t necessarily think it is the daughters fault.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@Paul E
Marriage is crumbling even where feminism has yet to get any real grip – such as in Iran and China.
At the moment, thanks to the internet etc; all traditional sources of power are collapsing right across the world – slowly – as people use these technologies to undermine all those forces that irk them. And these collapsing forces include those of ‘coercive’ social institutions such as marriage.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
>>And I think it will be a most undeserved misfortune.
That implies women aren’t smart enough to know what is happening. I have never found most women to be that stupid. Most women have embraced what has happened, or it would never have happened. It has suited them to bat their eyes and act innocent, and chant, “I am not a feminist.” While happily taking advantage of every feminist pogrom.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“man up or man down????” not necessary just breathe.
close your eyes brother while I tear off the clothing of your politics, and savage your beliefs until you submit…….. she said. I will cuckold your children and they will submit to the men of my choosing………she said.
Are you feeling up or down……. man?????
“RIGHTS!!!”………you have the right to understand that all this statistical tripe that everyone keeps spewing out like some kind of law of causation is nothing more than fortune-telling. An oracle of terrestrial astrology. Our courts are run by fortune-tellers. We argue now over who’s fortune-tellers are more accurate ……. it’s still f-ing fortune-telling.
“DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” …..your guilty is embodied in the term. domestic is another word for servant………servant violence????
stop using the term…….family violence is appropriate, it suggests a discovery process is required, a discovery process is what should take place, along with a healing process.
“MGTOW” ………absolutely!!!!………enjoy your freedom!!!!!!
form your guilds and brotherhoods……..join your fraternities….pay a tithe….be strong as a collective. step out of your body containment storage unit and breathe the freedom. Men this is your renaissance…..tear down the old (you built it) bring in the new. Leave the old world to the women…..let the women marry the women and let them argue over who is the victim……my brothers you are free……..
I am sure that Paul was foreshadowing a coming war, when he advised young men not to marry. It is difficult for a man to leave the warmth of his bed and wife to embrace the coldness of killing and war.
Is it any different today.
It is abundantly clear that corruption is the engine of our institutions, those very institutions that vilify, marginalize, and disenfranchise men from the family and the social fabric. Men embraced “affirmative action” in the workplace and were denied it in their homes. There was and is no affirmative action to open and welcome men to the home and family.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Family law clearly causes a lot of problems in divorces and subsequent fatherhood, no question it is obvious.
What is less obvious but very true is how many problems it causes within marriage, especially after children arrive. Before marriage, a woman has no recourse if her man dumps her (provided there is no “oops i’m pregnant)… so, if she wants to keep him she needs to treat him well.
After a marriage, and especially children, that same woman has the family courts in her corner. She no longer has to be concerned with keeping HIM happy… if he dumps her, she sue him and almost always win big and punish him greatly, possibly for life. Conversely, he must be greatly concerned with keeping HER happy, unless he wants to most his assets and income and any children.
Most women will say they won’t be like that, and may even believe it. But as the difficulties of life set in, most would have a hard time resisting being swayed by the favorable options provided by family law.
For all the talk of how unfair the family courts are to men, and they are inexcusably unfair, let us also consider what it does within the marriage. I firmly believe–as a married man with two young daughters–that a lot of marriages would not end if divorce were not made such an attractive option for the wife. An option that lowers her tolerance, increases her demands, and ultimately leads to the deterioration of marriage even if there is no divorce.
In short, unfair family law not only directly makes for unfair outcome in divorces, it indirectly causes more divorces itself.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:22 am
@Harry
I wasn’t so much referring to your post as I was the rather black and white position taken by some in such matters.
And it is indeed a tricky road. The thought of sharing ideas with feminists for me is sort of like sharing underwear with hobo. Not so appealing.
But the rub for this one for me is that it is not so much an agreement with them as an acknowlegment of the all but complete destruction of marriage they have accomplished. For were marriage still what it was in the past, I’d be flying the marriage banner as high as any.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:08 am
@Amfortas,
Should I find such a woman, have no doubt I would embrace her as you say. I am human and still by nature am driven to pair bond. I just hope she doesn’t believe in marriage.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
@Paul E
“Am I to fight feminism in my own little corner by finding a bride? LOL!”
LOL! If you are referring to my post, I did not actually mean that avoiding marriage, on its own, would hand everything on a plate to feminists.
I was talking about St Paul – and monks, MGTOW, and what have you – avoiding society, and, therefore, letting the feminists win the war.
IOW, if all our MRAs hoof off into the world of MGTOW, then who will be left to fight the war?
Also, of course, there is no escaping the fact that many MRAs, such as yourself, and the feminists have something in common, when it comes to some of their attitudes towards marrriage.
And many feminists would, I am sure, be most happy to hear some of your pronouncements on marriage.
LOL!
‘Tis a tricky road that we tread.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Paul E, if you do find a bride, I am sure she will be a lucky woman. She will need all the luck she can muster
But to the other Paul. The Saint one. He was a passionate chap who carved a path and he had a lot to say.
One saying concerned ‘putting away the things of childhood’, and our society has done just the opposite. We have sought the ‘inner child’ and adopted the inner brat, bringing the spoiled and nasty little girls who want to dominate the playground and the grotty, destructive little boys who like tearing the wings off flies, into every aspect of our outer-world. We need to find and bring forth the inner-MAN, without his armour of hubris. And I think (just a hope, perhaps) that the inner WOMAN might appear to make good companions.
So, fight your corner as you may, Paul E, and if a happy, healthy, good woman comes along, them embrace her, for her rarity if nothing else.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I have grown increasingly surprised in recent days how much of an either/or approach that many feel the need to take.
Maybe I am just missing something here, but I am not shooting for a kum ba yah moment to say that I don’t see any need for division on this one.
I feel it’s pretty obvious that marriage is toast and generally on the way out, but there are a heck of a lot of married men. So why not support those guys and not assume that if a man is prudent enough to abstain from marriage that he is handing over everything to feminists.
Am I to fight feminism in my own little corner by finding a bride? LOL!
September 6th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Harry Said,
Well, there is that.
Please don’t think that I am suddenly giving up on marriage. Heck, I’m married and quite happily so. I wouldn’t have it any other way. And I would not deprive anyone else of the experience. But I think I got lucky. It was not predestined to be that way. For most young men, getting married nowadays is just too much like Russian Roulette.
Which is the why the MGTOWers are multiplying just as the marriage-value generations are suffering mortal demographic decline.
But I don’t think St. Paul’s solution should be seen as a capitulation; it’s more like a “desperate measure” — like praying in a foxhole. Even atheists can’t resist when the bullets are flying.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@Everyone
I would urge MRAs to read Fidelbogen’s original piece about feminism being a hate movement (much already posted by Amfortas) …
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-feminism-hate-movement.html
In **my** view, it is sufficiently clear from this piece that MRAs should seek to destroy feminism – all varieties of it; not just radical feminism.
Given that many MRAs seem to be willing to accept the ’softer’ forms of feminism – a notion that often divides us – Fidelbogen’s piece could well help to change their minds.
I think that it is a very important piece of writing.
I have often tried to explain to my readers that feminism – all of it – is an ideology based on hatred, most notably in my belligerent piece …
http://www.angryharry.com/esEqualityNotAchievable.htm
… but Fidelbogen’s piece comes to the same conclusion by traversing very different pathways; and his approach is also very different – and effective.
2 @JayR
“However, we MUST begin to demand respect as a condition of our love.”
I would also say, “However, we MUST also begin to demand respect from society, from the law, from the media etc etc. or we will shoot them down.” – or words to that effect.
“Those men who can resist completely and avoid romantic entanglement will certainly have an easier time of it. But they will also miss out on a key part of the human experience.”
I do not really agree with this.
They might miss out on something that is worthwhile, but they will be getting something else worthwhile in return.
Peace, if nothing else!
LOL!
@Paul in Eastern Europe
That was a really moving post.
@Mike
You don’t have to be a Chrisitian to think like St Paul – my point being that your view about ‘not marrying’ etc etc could well become widespread even among non-Christians.
But, do you know what kills me about this approach (e.g. the MGTOW approach) though I sympathiase with it hugely?
It is that, by taking this approach, those goddamned feminists and Marxists will have ‘won. The MGTOW approach hands everything to them on a plate.
Now, like Paul E, I am not a great believer in marriage – or the future of marriage; but I think that it is crucial that men who do get married are supported to the hilt by MRAs.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Thanks you, Jay R. Our many efforts to re-define will eventually hit home and man will each find their own paths forward. The key to the validity and usefulness of those paths will lie in the man himself. And whatever inspiration I have given addresses that issue – The Man.
Whichever paths he chooses, and over a life it might be several, the constant is his improvement. The constant is his search within and the refinement of what fine things he finds there.
He can do this with or without a wife, as Mike and St Paul point out, and history has shown us many examples of good men who have pushed their way through the thickets of their own deficiencies to make paths for many others to follow, devoid of the close, warm and loving companionship of a good woman. But it is fortunate that other men, deficiencies in the way too, stopped long enough to have and raise the next generation with a good-enough woman or we would not be here to laud them. Let us honour our fathers.
We look down the paths through a spy-glass-darkly. I do not proscribe a path so much as point out where be dragons.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
@Everyone
I would urge MRAs to read Fidelbogen’s original piece about feminism being a hate movement (much already posted by Amfortas) …
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-feminism-hate-movement.html
In **my** view, it is sufficiently clear from this piece that MRAs should seek to destroy feminism – all varieties of it; not just radical feminism.
Given that many MRAs seem to be willing to accept the ’softer’ forms of feminism – a notion that often divides us – Fidelbogen’s piece could well help to change their minds.
I think that it is a very important piece of writing.
I have often tried to explain to my readers that feminism – all of it – is an ideology based on hatred, most notably in my belligerent piece …
http://www.angryharry.com/esEqualityNotAchievable.htm
… but Fidelbogen’s piece comes to the same conclusion by traversing very different pathways; and his approach is also very different – and effective.
============
2 @JayR
“However, we MUST begin to demand respect as a condition of our love.”
I would also say, “However, we MUST also begin to demand respect from society, from the law, from the media etc etc. or we will shoot them down.” – or words to that effect.
“Those men who can resist completely and avoid romantic entanglement will certainly have an easier time of it. But they will also miss out on a key part of the human experience.”
I do not really agree with this.
They might miss out on something that is worthwhile, but they will be getting something else worthwhile in return.
Peace, if nothing else!
LOL!
==============
@Paul in Eastern Europe
That was a really moving post.
================
@Mike
You don’t have to be a Chrisitian to think like St Paul – my point being that your view about ‘not marrying’ etc etc could well become widespread even among non-Christians.
But, do you know what kills me about this approach (e.g. the St Paul/MGTOW approach) though I sympathiase with it hugely?
It is that, by taking this approach, those goddamned feminists and Marxists will have ‘won. The MGTOW approach hands everything to them on a plate.
Now, like Paul E, I am not a great believer in marriage – or the future of marriage; but I think that it is crucial that men who do get married are supported to the hilt by MRAs.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
@Jay R
“But I don’t think any general prescription can be found. Each man who is aware enough, and cares enough, to change will find his path to independence within himself.”
Precisely. And while the offerings of some writers and advocates may inspire reflection and consideration, it will be up to individual men to make a choice to renegotiate their connection to women. I don’t think that will ever be a “movement” in the classical sense.
There really are laws of sorts, I think, of social physics. Taken from Newtons Laws of Motion, the simplified reduction of “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” can be used to loosely map historical changes in gender relations and, I think, predict what changes will come.
For instance, prior to the industrial revolution, gender roles, while there, were not nearly as delineated as they were after. Men leaving the home to work necessitated women’s domination of the home and subsequently income.
The IR also became a dangling carrot for women seeing men rise to what they imagined was power outside the home. Feminism was assured with the construction of the first factory.
And as women entered the work force as a monolithic, competitive group against men, it ensured a gender war. One that men lost, btw.
But with women breaking free of their roles it necessitated that they would eventually lose their governance over mens income and labor. One would think this would have happened sooner, but it really hasn’t been all that long. Women got the right to vote about 60-70 years after the onset of the suffrage movement. And it took another 70 years before the feminist power grab was more or less complete.
Social change is seldom an event, but process. It moves like a lumbering ship, turning slow taking time.
If there is a real delay, it is the fact that men have grabbed the pendulum as it swung toward them and held it from swinging back in an effort to keep protecting women. But we are finally beginning to see the effects of holding that dead weight in place as men become more marginalized and burdened with the neurotic obligation to take care of women that don’t need it.
The pity, and I mean this literally, is that when men finally buckle and let that pendulum loose, it will swing back full force in the faces of a generation of women who don’t expect it and are not prepared for it.
And I think it will be a most undeserved misfortune.
They will bear the weight and take the blow of several generations of poor decisions by women, just as surely as our young men are now being destroyed by the poor decisions of their fathers.
Of course, this is all an opinion, but if I am correct, it will be several generations after that before we find some parity between the sexes.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Amfortas, your efforts to chart a path to a new male self-definition are invaluable, and your wise leadership is inspirational. Your frustration at the apparent lack of “traction” is understandable.
But I don’t think any general prescription can be found. Each man who is aware enough, and cares enough, to change will find his path to independence within himself. Our current attitudes — based on now-outmoded chivalry — bind us. We must change those attitudes. Blind hate is as crippling as is passivity, so both must be avoided. Reasoned, affectionate moderation will prevail — I hope. Women need not be rejected, nor treated hatefully; they just may no longer be unconditionally worshipped.
I think Mike L. does us a service by pointing to the distilled wisdom of the past. “Equality” in male-female relationships is a disfunctional illusion. The answer proffered by the New Testament is asymmetrical. In a happy, functional relationship a man loves his wife (and so delights in her happiness, and seeks to always protect and provide for her), while in exchange, a wife submits to her husband — i.e., she respects his masculinity (and in the process induces him to earn that respect, and to love her all the more). Both are “burdened,” both are rewarded.
There is NO subjugation of women inherent in this “unequal” formula! What man could really love a woman who is unwilling to honor his masculine strength and respect his leadership? And what woman would be willing to submit to the leadership of a man who did not love her — and thus have her best interests at heart at all times?
This breakdown in the love/submission exchange is already being manifested at a collective level, as is apparent from the dearth of marriages and the surfeit of divorces; women may return men’s love with love of their own, but they increasingly are not offering them respect — and thus “submission.” Without that respect, a man’s love wanes. A woman who does not submit to her man lets him know that she does not trust him, respect him, or need him. As a man’s love wanes, it becomes impossible in turn for a woman to truly respect him.
We men must still continue to offer love to women, and we must act in a manner deserving of respect. Hating them, and/or avoiding them, are not constructive strategies (just think how they’ve made YOU feel over the last 30+ years!). However, we MUST begin to demand respect as a condition of our love. How to do that in a loving and constructive way will be the real challenge for each individual man. Those men who can resist completely and avoid romantic entanglement will certainly have an easier time of it. But they will also miss out on a key part of the human experience.
In the meantime, I think that calling attention to the issues facing men, and encouraging a community of like-minded people to come together to reinforce the validity of the new, politically-incorrect attitudes is crucial. Just think. Each time one of the “veterans” reiterates a point for the “nth” time, someone brand new to the discussion may have their world-view changed.
I once was instructed in the secret to effective teaching: 1) tell them what you’re going to tell them, 2) tell them, and then 3) tell them what you told them — eventually it will sink in. We need to continue to give voice to these issues; to develop our own vocabulary and “talking points.” With the help of the internet, we will eventually come out of the “wilderness” and the new, chivalry-free attitudes for men will increasingly begin to seep into the mainstream.
September 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am
@ Jim Bailey.
Hi there.
@Paul Elam,
Thanks for being kind about my comment.I agree with what you say (below) to a great extent.
****is that women have been endowed with enormous power relative to that of men’s by nature itself. And that this power has been malignantly increased by the advent of feminism.*****
I hope that can be changed.
Funnily enough I have accepted an offer to work voluntarily in women’s refuges for 6 months and have taken up another offer to attend their groups to discuss solutions. Men’s groups are also involved and single parenting fits in well. No-one knows the answer to solve all the scenarios of families but they keep trying never-the-less.
………..
I also agree that challenging gender roles is positive. I like what Mike LaSalle and Jacqueline say and I think that will be welcomed well in society.
These are definitely exciting times.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Once again a fair look at how we interact not as male & female so much , but as human beings. These roles are deeply ingrained in who we are good & bad. I would bet this goes back to our reptilian brains. Survival of the fittest & a need to procreate. The male would protect in order to attain a legacy. It would appear that is still the case yet to procreate is not the reason any longer.
I agree that this is no longer required in today’s world, has it started to shift. Are we complacent about the roles we are subjugated to by virtue of the genitalia we were born with. Content with the status quo.
Women are afforded more choice’s as the last 40 years have proven. Fair perhaps not. Many juggle to many balls & something always suffers weather it be their children, their jobs. In my humble opinion it is a catch 22 for all of us humans trying to make through.
I am one if those few waining souls willing to find my way through the modern morass looking for new traditions. Yes it a gamble and even with Las Vegas odds, It is one I will take .
Great Piece always challenges me to think outside my gender
September 6th, 2009 at 8:51 am
On unplugging from the Matrix: or, St. Paul Makes a Trifecta
It’s remarkable to me just how valid the New Testament still is in reflecting the basic profile of the human condition.
Of course my position is in stark contrast to the collective and perfunctory assumption among educated MRAs that Christianity should be relegated to the trash heap of history.
But consider this passage from St. Paul, Corinthians 7, on Christian marriage. St. Paul begins by advising young men NOT TO MARRY:
“It is good for a man not to marry.”: Cor. 7:1
He repeats himself in Cor. 7:8 : “To the unmarried…. I say it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.”
Again, the FIRST CHOICE articulated by St. Paul is to stay unmarried. That is, for those men who are able to control their sexual passions, it is better for them to remain unencumbered by the physical and emotional entanglements of family and kinship, and to devote their lives instead to introspection and self control.
St. Paul is EXPLICIT when he declares marriage a second (and inferior) choice.
Now, I appreciate that our modern age of birth control obviates some of the need to control sexual passions. Thus men nowadays can imagine that they may have their cake and eat it too. (ie., they can have sexual partners without the encumbrances of marriage and kinship ties, and all the economic responsibilities that go with it.)
But absent these technical features of modernity, I would argue that MRAs — the MGTOWers at least — are AT ONE with St. Paul’s “Instruction on Christian Marriage”, Corinthians 7: 1-9.
That makes MGTOWers definite candidates for establishing their own religion based on St. Paul’s warning against marriage as a form of existential bondage.
The One Church of Men.
Oh, I like it.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:34 am
I know I share the same first name as Paul Elam, but what’s amazing is that we also share the same mind. I don’t think I can usefully add to anything that had been said above. Instead I will just recount a little of my own recent experience. It concerns MGTOW.
The story is more complicated than I will relate, but the essence of it is that the middle of last year I abandoned everything, job, family, country and everything else in order to live alone on a mountainside in a fairly remote part of Eastern Europe ( I had lived in the UK). I did not speak a word of the local language which in any case is extremely difficult for the outsider to learn. So there I was on a hillside overlooking the river Drava.
My mind was full of all sorts of thoughts. In a sense I was trying to reconstruct myself. In another sense I was trying to find my completeness. I recall thinking very strongly that I did not care if I perished but that if I die then I would die complete as a man.
So for about eight months I lived alone speaking little but spending a lot of time walking in the mountains trying to find that which was not so much lost, but that which had never been formed within me at all.
There is no true conclusion to this story. I have no wisdom to impart. Yes I did profit from the experience and am ‘improved’ by it. But I also saw my own failure. That for me the strength was just not enough to carry me forwards and to break free. Perhaps I can tell you that I do think it is possible, but for me it was not. Perhaps I was just too old to begin my sprint ( I exceed Paul Elam by a few years) or perhaps the inner self was just too dessicated to ever revive.
In my daydreams I still plot my return to those now familiar hills and rivers. I even have a place selected about 15 kilometres from where I was previously. I could do it but I doubt my strength is sufficient. It could be that in the end the only lesson I actually lent was to surrender myself to my hideous fate as in fact men had always done.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:36 am
@Julie
I don’t take disagreement as dislike. No problem there. I appreciate your thoughts.
And trust me, I am well aware of what men have achieved. I am reminded of it every time I see the Houston skyline, or when I ponder that NASA headquarters is just a few miles from where I live. Indeed, I am reminded of it even as I type this message on a computer the size of grade school writing tablet and send to you across the planet in the blink of an eye.
Nor does the greatness of Ghandi, King, Schweitzer and others pass by me unnoticed.
I can only suggest you might read the piece again and reconsider what i am saying. I don’t think women want to offer their children to the state, or their parents at all.
What i am saying, in perhaps more succinct fashion, is that women have been endowed with enormous power relative to that of men’s by nature itself. And that this power has been malignantly increased by the advent of feminism.
I have met many women who I am sure would lay down their lives if their children were threatened. And I have seen some of the same ones use their children as pawns, doing great psychological damage to them, in family courts when their marriages went bad.
They did, in effect, rob their children of their fathers and hand them over to the state, though I doubt they are even able to see that in any meaningful way. I know what their answers are to what they think. The women I just mentioned have told me that they are acting in the best interest of their children, and I have no doubt, though woefully misguided, that they believe they are telling me the truth.
As to the media, I agree. They make waves between the genders. But Julie, those waves are sill more of “making Momma happy.” I can’t speak to what is happening in NZ, but I can say that here those waves all go in one direction, crashing over the heads of men and boys, drowning more of them every day.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Why Don’t More Males Fight Back?
Because we have amongst our gender class sado-masochistic suckers for punishment, traitors to our gender and our collective common interests, untrustworthy opportunists and dupes, chivalrous bigots and arrogant female-favouring chauvenists to boot.
Then really … How can males fight back against structures that they themselves created, re-invented and perpetually refined to inhibit, thwart and usurp each other for an illusory and momentary dominance. That is, on the pretext of assisting females and children, they alone are permited, as a bribe, to enprostitute, bastardise or kill.
Let us be honest and admit feminism to be, on its own, simply a harmless movement of parasites and inadequates, only made lethal by the connivance, treachery and conspiracy of duplicitous males. That is duplicitous males whom are ever in it for themselves alone.
Look all around you and tell us where males are not infact dominant in numbers and in real power where it matters. Males are in the ascendant in just about everywhere and everyplace but they use their ascendancy and power against themselves. Not unlike dogs.
This cultural sickness has persisted for generations because it is a mendacity that perpetually renews itself by education, socialisation, incrimination and isolation.
Politicaly activist males for the male-gender class must behave like intolerant, belligerant, shameless, uncompromising, relentless, fanatical, hysterical uber-bitches against every man or leader they identify as being the source of male degeneracy and diminishment.
It isnt feminism and it never, ever was feminism. But the ignorant and sly ones amongst us could have fooled you and the unthinking man for ever on this.
It is, it was and it’ll ever be us and our attitude against ourselves and against our common intrests as a male gender class … a distinct group having its own wants, needs, concerns and natural privileges in this world.
September 5th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Paul, Greetings from New Zealand. Thanks for this – Well said – Up on; Equal parenting @ Ration Shed, BLOG
Onward – Jim
September 5th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
This should interest you from 1956 …
The American Woman …
http://www.angryharry.com/reTheAmericanWoman.htm
September 5th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
You know…. I learned about the Internet 3 years ago because I met an American man who had run away from America (just like lots of other Americans in New Zealand) .. who offered to make a website for my new trust.
I also looked online for men’s support for the trust I had just started and I thought it was enough when I realised men didn’t have support and I set out to fix the problem.
But I was told there was more. And learn I did.
Some was crap for today’s living but what wasn’t crap was families.
Don’t underestimate what men have achieved Paul. Don’t underestimate men (full stop). They didn’t stay on the net …. they moved into areas where they could make a difference on the ground. They now discuss matters with feminists and both sides (on the ground) are waking up.
Women DON’T DON’T DON’T DON’T want to give their children to the state. Feminists are furious. I wouldn’t tell a lie on something so important. They DON’T DON’T DON’T want to give the elderly to the state either.
No-one online sees what goes on behind the scenes. No-one online even cares to ask.
But they talk about freedom. Freedom eh? Are you serious? What exactly is freedom?
Do you seriously think children want freedom from parents? Do you seriously think freedom is in men’s best interest or women’s? How has that worked so far?
IMHO…. (below) …….
Every generation tries to make a better way than the last. If you spoke with young feminists for real they would tell you they hate being called Hitler and they would tell you they think men are being unfair because they know they are making huge mistakes. They say, “Hey, we have only been working on domestic violence for 20 years. How can you expect us to have it right?”
…………..
Also know that the world is not America. A place that is soooo big you are bound to find extremes.
Other cultures have figured what is going on. Hey, the Japanese government asked my group to participate in a documentary for they have to agree with the social moves under global trade laws. They are looking just like every other country to not make the same mistakes.
…………..
Just look further Paul. (please)
Look past the journalist’s writing and ask them, “Why do you do what you do”, look past the title of ‘Women’s refuge worker or feminist’ and ask them what they think. WHAT THEY THINK not what they are spun. You might even get some asking, “Who are you, who do you represent” for they live in fear.
Ask all the people who are quoted in newspapers if it is really their words being spoken. That’s a good one. I hardly ever come across someone who is not angry at the way the media twists their words. Media is a cut throat business. It thrives on making waves between the genders.
Hey, I still think you’re great Paul. (hard to tell that from my writing but it is truth
)
September 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
@Toysoldiers
“The problem, at least from the perspective of a younger generation, is that when we looked for help there were are fathers (if they were in the pictures), uncles, cousins and grandfathers going along with it. Even as these men complained about the situation they did nothing. I think the same thing holds true in every situation in which feminist policies have negatively impacted men. When Hilary Clinton stated last month that the economic downturn hurt women the most, where were the complaints from the men who are the real victims of the economic crisis? When study after study shows that the lack of male role models and male teachers drastically effects boys (and girls), where are all the activists concerned about working-class kids and various ethnic groups?”
Man, is that ever a mouthful of truth if I ever saw it.
I think Harry is right, they didn’t know they were being lied to. But I think it runs much deeper than that. I was born in the generation where nuclear families were still intact and fathers were only absent for work, for the most part.
And for the most part those men spent their lives, despite feminist claptrap, serving women, not controlling them. And I don’t just mean protection and provision.
“If mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy,” wasn’t just a funny saying about a minority of women. When I was a kid in the American south, the average young man could expect a rod to the backside, from his fathers hand, if he made his mother upset. And most any man of the times would tell anyone asking for advice on women, “give them anything they want and don’t argue with them, you can’t win.”
The enabling of feminism, which was not a liberation from powerlessness, but a grab for more of power by the already empowered, was just more of making Momma happy; more of giving women what they wanted. And it was men that did it.
Women spent the lions share of money earned by men long before gender feminism arrived.
There never was any real male role models, not in the truest sense. There were men doing jobs, like coaches and the like, and those guys still exist. But the rest of men were drummed out of the picture, not because their was a gun to their head or because they swallowed a lie, but because they were doing what women told them to.
Older men who abandon the mentoring of younger ones were make believe role models, only used to train more men to serve women. And when there came a need for those men to teach younger men to reconsider what was in their best interest, they ran from their responsibilities to the next generation like cowards.
When it gets down to it, men are biologically designed to be exploited by women, and women are biologically designed to exploit them. That is not inferring sociopathy in women, but just an assessment of behaviors that developed related to survival needs.
That is why, in my opinion, that the only way men will ever leave the trap of what we call masculinity, which is really just codes peak for disposability, is to rage against their own biology to do it. And that will be true for every generation.
September 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
An excellent enunciation of the problem from Paul, and a sound acknowledgement from Jay R. It is a message heard all around the MRM. And while it bears some repetition, no solution is offered. Paul’s essay leaves us where, precisely?
There are many solutions-of-sort, such as the MGTOW that are discussed but which fail to address what men are, what we are about or where we are to go to, alone, together or as a social contributor. Reverting to the ‘Patriarchy’ as faux-defined by feminists as a burnable straw man won’t do either. Odds are that Women-in-General are niether going to give up their privileges not subscribe to any attempt by men – even their own sons – to find their own Authenticity.
We as men are not going to roll back the tide or even surf the waves unless we define ourselves in an authentic, human way which eschews the failings of the past – largely due to ‘Women’s Rules’ chivalry – and look deep into ourselves to become a whole lot different to our fathers.
That does not mean dishonouring tha fathers. They did as best they could in difficult but different circumstances.
I have tried several times in various places to outline the needed attributes of ‘the man to come’. I look forward to Paul and others to craft essays that go well beyond simple repetition of getting-tired problem definition.
September 5th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@Toysoldiers
“The problem, at least from the perspective of a younger generation, is that when we looked for help there were are fathers (if they were in the pictures), uncles, cousins and grandfathers going along with it.”
1. They didn’t know how much they were being lied to. There was no internet.
2. Even if they knew, no-one in the mainstream would support their views and give them an airing.
The mainstream wants money. This means keeping women buying their products. They are not, therefore, going to go against an ideology that millions of women believe represents their interests.
September 5th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I have a few questions for all those “real men” that tell the new generation to “man up”:
- Where were those “real men”, when marriage, the bedrock of our civilization got destroyed and replaced with the sick farce that it is today?
- Where were those “real men” when children got kidnapped away from their fathers, and a generation of depressed, drug addicted, and criminal kids grew up as a result (look up the social data if you don’t know about it)? Aren’t “real men” supposed to protect children?
- How much “real men” were they, if they couldn’t even stand up to a bunch of hysterical feminist idiots, that played them all the way to the bank?
From where I stand, they don’t look like “real men”, they look like pussy-wipped spineless losers that never got the courage to stand up to women. Well, guess what? We will!
Generation Y looks at this mess, and we’re saying: we don’t have to protect women, we don’t have to provide for women, we don’t have to work hard, and we don’t have to pay for “our” children because they are not “our” children – they belong to their mothers, so let them pay for their bastard kids. If women insist on marginalizing men, taking their property rights, parental rights and rights to due process – we will not support them or the society they have created. Now that takes more balls than the “real men” of the previous generation ever had!
September 5th, 2009 at 11:19 am
What if a man doesn’t want to?
Some men asking this question — mostly Gen X-ers and Gen Y-ers — although they are typically castigated for doing so. I think this happens with my generation (Generation Y) because we grew up with these policies and social norms in place. We have always heard the “girls are better than boys” line and we have always seen girls being given opportunities because they are girls while boys with the same interests, needs and goals are left to fend on their own.
The problem, at least from the perspective of a younger generation, is that when we looked for help there were are fathers (if they were in the pictures), uncles, cousins and grandfathers going along with it. Even as these men complained about the situation they did nothing. I think the same thing holds true in every situation in which feminist policies have negatively impacted men. When Hilary Clinton stated last month that the economic downturn hurt women the most, where were the complaints from the men who are the real victims of the economic crisis? When study after study shows that the lack of male role models and male teachers drastically effects boys (and girls), where are all the activists concerned about working-class kids and various ethnic groups?As inspiring as Obama can be, where is his complaint about the lack of male teachers or how many black women in his own community push fathers and men in general out of children’s lives?
There needs to be a stepping up to the plate, not because men are bad, but because men are better than this.
September 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
At the end of the movie, Gone with the Wind, when Rhett Butler refuses to put up with Scarlett O’Hara anymore, she frets aloud, “Where shall I go? What shall I do?”
He snaps back, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!”
AFI’s 100 Movie Quotes Position #: 1
September 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Paul,
As usual, you are right on the money — even as you break my traditional heart. I see my now-grown daughter and sons forced to venture into what has become a gender competition, if not an outright battlefield. But why battle if you can just withdraw?
You point to the hard path which, since the genie IS out of the bottle, men must take to bring society to its senses, to recover self-control and self-respect, and to regain some control of our own lives in this “asylum.” It will be very difficult for men to do this; we may indeed have to change our natures — but not in the way the feminists had hoped. It will be worse for women as they begin to comprehend the negative familial impacts of the bread-winning burden they are now FORCED to bear (talk about losing privilege). But let’s not forget that the primary burden will be borne by those children who still manage to be conceived and survive abortion, as they instinctively yearn for increasingly rare familial stability and harmony. Society will pay a steep price before equilibrium is restored — if it ever is restored.
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” was intended to be an insult to men and a Declaration of Independence for women. It was, but it was also an Emancipation Proclamation for men. Translation: “Hey guys, we women can take care of ourselves financially and physically (with the help of the State), so you are now collectively off the hook (except for paying taxes for our benefit)! Go have fun seeking shallow personal fulfillment — just like we women are doing. We’ll just get together for casual sex, and thereby reduce each other to nothing more than our respective genitalia. If a kid happens, well that’s what the “village” is for!”
I have heard of Comanche arrows which were triple-barbed, so that pulling them out, or digging them out, was impossible. The only way to remove the arrowhead was to push it through and out the other side — and hope this didn’t kill the person. Reminds me of the situation we have gotten ourselves into — men and women together — as we fell asleep at the switch and allowed gender feminism to infiltrate our institutions. There is no going back.
A hard path, indeed.
September 5th, 2009 at 3:46 am
When feminists set out to change “gender roles,” they failed to recognize that “gender roles” were also “gender agreements” that existed within a larger social contract. Both men and women gave to each other and received from each other in various ways. In marriage, for example, a man traditionally provided and protected while the woman gave the man a family, love, and sex. It was a bargain, a tit for tat, an exchange of one thing for something else. Usually, both parties benefited.
When feminists decided to modify gender roles, what they did was simply relieve women of any obligations to keep up their part of the bargain while demanding that men keep up their part of the bargain. Women could end their part of the bargain but men could not end theirs. Women could also demand society provide them with various benefits–the right to vote, for example–though women had no reciprocal obligation, such as an obligation to defend the country.
The problem, of course, is that once you relieve yourself of your part of a bargain, you also relieve the other party of his part of the bargain. If you’re not going to pay the bill, the waiter has no obligation to bring your supper. So, too, if women refuse to keep their part of the bargain, men have no responsibility for keeping theirs.
The problem for men, however, is that the feminists managed to grab hold of the reigns of power. Politicians have fallen over themselves to give women what they want–a world in which society and men have obligations to women but women have no reciprocal obligations to men and society. So politicians relieved women of their part of the bargain but used its power to force men to keep their part of the bargain. Gradually created was a system in which men have unilateral obligations to women but women have no reciprocal obligations to men.
The long-term problem is that the social contract has been destroyed and neither party has a motive to maintain it or restore it. Using state power to enforce an unfair and unjust bargain eventually results in rebellion. The parasite eventually destroys its host.