The Latest
- We Need To Huddle Close To Women For Provision and Protection [Rebuking Feminism]
- 15 Questions from a Feminist [ArgusEyes]
- A Gen Y Woman Acknowledges Gold Digging’s Resurgence [Marty Nemko]
- Cold Calculation [ArgusEyes]
- DV Roundup: Excusing, Ignoring DV by Women [Glenn Sacks]
- The Gender Gap in Education: Could it Result From Public Policy? [Glenn Sacks]
- SUICIDE IN THE MILITARY [Elder George]
- An Announcement Concerning Blog Comments & Letters to the Editor [Glenn Sacks]
- NYTimes: Shortage of college men makes for female “victims” [Men's Activism News]
- A different kind of health care reform is needed in America — how men treat themselves [Men's Activism News]
- « More articles
We Need To Huddle Close To Women For Provision and Protection
| Contributor: | Rebuking Feminism [source] | |
| Date: | February 8, 2010 |
Good choice leaving IT Jeremy, I'm doing the same.. Send me an email if you like, I'd like to know what drove you out as well.... A lot of the tech and engineering guys I know are getting out and going the only place left for decent work...healthcare and education....
The best thing is to go where the women are as this is where we devoted the majority of the stimulus package.. "No Country For Burly Men" is an interesting article... Women are the largest voting block so they devoted the money there.
In Joe Biden's address to women he stated that women are the most affected by the recession and that we live in a male chauvinist society..
Robert Reich Obama's cheif economic advisor stated "I am concerned as many of you are, that these jobs not simply go
to high skilled people who are professionals or white male construction workers" "Criteria can be set so that the money goes to others, the long term unemployed, minorities and women."
Many men's jobs are gone for good.. 80% of all jobs lost in this recession are to men. The president said " “Women are just as likely to be the primary bread earner, if not more likely, than men are today,” ...
They are celebrating that women are now the majority of the workforce and earn 60% of the college degrees. The week long presentation on MSNBC "A Woman's Nation" helped outline the plan to push women into the primary role in the workforce.
The Council On Women and Girls is planning to extend Title IX and Affirmative Action for women to all Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics departments in all colleges nation wide. The best idea for men is to huddle close to women for protection and provision.
I've also found that it helps to declare yourself a "diversity candidate" on your online resume. You might also change your name on it to Jeremi which could also help.. You can also tell them that you are 1/5th African American as I believe you can declare your race, they just can not ask. So as I've experienced your contacts will increase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a lighter note, do you happen to know where I can get a pair of synthetic breasts along with a breast milk pump that comes will hermetically sealed containers to keep the milk.. I need to get some good equipment in order to breast feed? I'd like to get familiar with some good products. It is important to adapt accordingly to our marginalization...
+of+ScreenShot002.jpg)
Man breastfeeding
Nature made the sexes complimentary for a reason, the natural roles of each gender are indispensable. We simply need to fill in the vaccume that women have left. Maria Shriver said on "A Woman's Nation" that men need to contribute to more housework and if we do then we will get more sex.. Me man, all my needs are reduced to one thing, me like sex, me do what woman want!
+of+ScreenShot007.jpg)
Topics: Rebuking Feminism | Comments
15 Questions from a Feminist
| Contributor: | ArgusEyes [source] | |
| Date: | February 8, 2010 |
Recently I was contacted by a feminist who asked me 15 questions. I rarely do so much typing without offering the end result for everyone else to see and criticise so here are my answers:
1. What is feminism to you? Is its position defensive or offensive? Do you think one could be sympathetic to its theories?
To me, feminism is the enemy. The existence of the men’s rights movement is owed directly to feminism and its influences on society. No feminism, then no MRA’s (Men’s Rights Activists). This is not to say that the movement has not achieve some good, but like most victim movements its inevitable end is depravity, and I’m sure MRAism will be the same which is why I am reticent to associate myself with any “ism” without due diligence. I am more anti-feminist than I am an MRA.
Feminisms position is primarily offensive, it is about imposing a political view on society. Even if I were to agree with the gender goals of feminism, I, as a Libertarian, would surely despise its totalitarian leanings. Most feminists are leftists, they have a plan for how things should be.
2. Because you believe in equal opportunity as opposed to material equality, do you think that little girls and teenage girls really have equal opportunity? Or are young boys disadvantaged?
What I have always said is that females have no less opportunity than males in our western societies. However, there are many areas where they have more opportunity/rights. See my video “men are more oppressed than women” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWIfMjzBII) for examples of this. Boys are certainly disadvantaged when compared to women but I don’t want to come off as a whiner here. I don’t go around thinking “man, I’m so oppressed”. It doesn’t happen. I am a person who is opinionated and takes a visceral dislike to feminism and the ideas and attacks on men it represents.
3. Does patriarchy exist? Doesn’t the fact that men have more power, prestige, and influence in America confirm that patriarchy exists? What are your views on hegemony?
Yes. As a societal system in many countries around the world, it exists. Does it exist in the west? No. Words have meanings. If we look at the definition of patriarchy:
“a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.”
Males must have the ruling position by design for it to be patriarchy. I’ve had a feminist make the argument to me before that since most politicians in the UK are male then it’s patriarchal, but this is ridiculous of course, they’re there because they were elected, not because of their genitalia. If we were to have more women as politicians in a year’s time then would we live in a matriarchal society? No. It was another example of sloppy thinking by a person who desperately wanted to be the victim.
4. Considering about 60% of women in America self-identify as feminists, do you really think that feminism is all about the vilification/ emasculation/ castration of men? Aren’t they more subtle and nuanced than “wanting to blame you for everything”?
You are simplifying what I believe feminism to be. Hatred of men may be a common trait in feminists but it is not what feminism is about or what attracts women to feminism. I’ve not heard this 60% figure but it wouldn’t surprise me. Many people don’t know anything about feminism and have bought into the line that is stands for equal rights and all things good. The appeal to popularity isn’t a good argument. People can buy into crap and have done so many times throughout history.
5. What would have to change before men and women achieved true equality?
Societal: We would have to adopt the opportunity view of equality and mean it; we would have to get over this instinct of sniggering when “men’s rights” are mentioned and realise that women have no less opportunity than men do and now men and boys are suffering in many regards. We also need to drop chivalry and the need to protect women using the law. If we are going to have equal opportunities then we need to get over this primitive protectionist mentality.
Concrete examples: No different prison punishments for males vs. females. Shared custody as a default. No quotas (AKA positive discrimination). Equal retirement ages. No wage coercion. Equal opportunity for protection for male victims of DV. Plus some..
Also, more women than men in the workplace, politics or university is not an instance of oppression against men if they got there by their own choice on an equal playing field. If they got there by bringing men down with the coercive force of the state, then that is what I have a problem with.
6. How do men in today’s society feel about women in general?
As a misanthrope, I cannot tell you what “men” think. Many who I’ve talked to are as fed up as I am about many aspects of modern feminism.
7. Is there a difference between women and women’s roles in England and women’s roles in America? I’ve heard that women from the UK are more independent, and we are 93% religious.
Whatever differences there are will be small. I think that the two societies are largely similar and thus will be the gender roles.
8. (Do you still refer to us as “the colonies”?)
Nope.
9. Aren’t some (some) men’s issues irrelevant to gender discrimination? For instance, I was watching John Stuart, which featured some air time about a certain men’s rights group in Canada. Their leader voiced concern that “when a football player gets kicked off a football team, none of the cheerleaders would think to still cheer for him, in class, at school… “ and that “men don’t have a place to organize and be guys anymore”. I couldn’t believe it. He’s angry that girls don’t cheer for boys MORE than they already do? And what are bars, poker nights, gentlemen’s clubs, basements, auto mechanic shops, sports stadiums, and the US Senate for? Obviously men’s rights aren’t particularly concerned about these things, but what about others? Men’s circumcision, for instance? Or the fact that more men are dropping out of school? Or the prevalence of suicide, or the exemption of women in combat? None of these issues have anything to do with feminism or oppression, and yet they’re treated as such.
That guy was Warren Farrell, he is a luminary of the men’s rights movement and he has a lot of sensible things to say. I would take what you see on the John Stuart comedy hour with a pinch of salt, they are not above cheap editing and misrepresentation.
Some problems are an indirect consequence of feminism. Girls rise and boys fall in the wake of a massive political and social movement known as feminism which is dedicated to benefiting women and girls. Either girls have reached their natural superior status and boys have fallen for some other reason, or the social engineering over the past decades has had a bad effect, or some other reason. MRA’s and anti-feminists pick the middle one.
10. Don’t most men feel superior to women on some level?
On some level maybe. Like physically. However, I don’t think men stand around feeling superior about this, they understand that men are men and women are women, and both have their good and bad qualities.
11. Can men and women treat each other with mutual respect without pandering to the conventions of chivalry and femininity?
Mutual respect is easier without the knee-jerk manbashing that I’ve encountered from numerous young women I have lived with and worked with over the years. I’ve seen nothing like this on a similar level from the men I’ve known. It’s not 50/50. Female attitudes have been influenced by the societal zeitgeist over the years and this has been driven, in turn, by feminism. The gender war has been a one-sided war so far, we have a problem with manbashing media more than the other way around. Women need to let go of their resentments if relations are to become better.
12. Why do you accuse women of ‘destroying the family’? Wasn’t the 1950s family scene degrading to women? Isn’t it good that women are putting their careers first?
This one is bemusing. Could you point out where I said this?
13. How are little boys and girls socialized, and how does this affect their perceptions of gender?
One of the greatest socialising factors in our society is feminism. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion” refers to the actions of feminism as “consciousness raising”. He states:
“It was the feminists who raised my consciousness of the power of consciousness-raising.”
...
“Man, mankind, the rights of man, all men are created equal, one man one vote - English too often seems to exclude women. When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel slighted by a phrase like "the future of man". During the intervening decades, we have all had our consciousness raised. Even those who still use "man" instead of "human" do so with an air of self-conscious apology - or truculence, taking a stand for traditional language, even deliberately to rile feminists.”
I feel this when I use the generic “he”. We have indeed been affected by feminist in our western societies, they have formed our language and laws. I can tell you how it affected one little boy – me. I was hurt by the feminist slogans about fish and bicycles. I felt the manbashing on TV. Feminism has had free reign – there is no normative opposition to their views until the one that is growing now.
14. Wouldn’t implementing a ‘men’s studies’ department be redundant, due to the fact that every academic subject extols the achievements, conquests, and intellectual breakthroughs of men in history, art, science, etc.?
I do not think there should be men’s studies departments. My reaction to feminism is not to instigate the same policies but with the sex reversed to males instead of females.
However, I don’t agree with your representation of many fields to extol the achievements of men. They extol the achievements of great figures in history, some of these are women but the vast majority are men because of the nature of gender roles in the past. Fair or not, these men are extolled not for being men, but for being the great figures of history.
Also, extolling the achievements of men would not be the aim of a men’s studies course. The course would be a study of the male mind and role in society. To the historical courses take this approach to understanding men?
15. Is domestic violence really 50/50 in severity, domination, long-term effects, etc.?
I don’t know about 50/50, it probably doesn’t end up that way but I do think that DV against me is played down in our society. Whether it is 50/50 or not, men deserve the opportunity of protection that is being afforded women if they are suffering from DV.
A Gen Y Woman Acknowledges Gold Digging’s Resurgence
| Contributor: | Marty Nemko [source] | |
| Date: | February 8, 2010 |
I received this email from a reader, who subsequently gave me permission to post it here.
Hi Marty,
What a refreshing blog! I'm a single 25/F. I appreciate many of your strong opinions, even the ones to which most women would likely take offense - regarding the stay-at-home mom/beast-of-burden epidemic. It's discussed all too seldom and maybe it's even a little taboo:
I know a number of women who seem to have little guilt in putting the financial burden solely on their unassuming husbands/boyfriends to establish and maintain comfortable lifestyles. These women want a big wedding, children, and a house for those children all without putting in the time and effort to actually earn it. They leave that to their husbands.
I don't see a problem with a woman devoting her life to being a housewife (although I don't necessarily understand it either) so long as her husband can afford it (and wants to afford it) alone. However, the aspect that you touch on so nicely is what happens when the husband can't afford it and the wife refuses to make it any easier. Most of the 20-something men I know don't earn enough to support all the things that come with maintaining a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, to live comfortably on Long Island, a family should be pulling in close to six figures, and it's not fair to leave it all up to the man.
Before they receive their first post-college paychecks, these women want a house, an SUV, 2.5 kids, and the time to go back to school and pursue a graduate degree. Going back to school, as you said, is just a way for many to avoid getting a real job, although it is often disguised as a means to a better end. What it usually turns into is a bitter end, as college loans pile up on top of costly preschool tuitions.
It is unfortunate that so many women can manipulate this sort of existence from their men. I really feel that, despite what Oprah says, being a stay-at-home mom is not quite the same level of "hard" that's required to keep a decent paying job.
Lisa Green
Long Island, NY
leesuh84@aol.com
Topics: Marty Nemko | Comments
Cold Calculation
| Contributor: | ArgusEyes [source] | |
| Date: | February 7, 2010 |
DV Roundup: Excusing, Ignoring DV by Women
| Contributor: | Glenn Sacks [source] | |
| Date: | February 7, 2010 |
Read this article on Glenn's Web site
Topics: Glenn Sacks |
The Gender Gap in Education: Could it Result From Public Policy?
| Contributor: | Glenn Sacks [source] | |
| Date: | February 7, 2010 |
Read this article on Glenn's Web site
Topics: Glenn Sacks |
SUICIDE IN THE MILITARY
| Contributor: | Elder George [source] | |
| Date: | February 6, 2010 |
What caused the high rate of mental disorder among Vietnam veterans and what causes the high rate of suicide among today’s service personnel? These conditions are related; mental disorder leads to suicide. If we deal with the first the second will be alleviated.
The ALM article also pointed out that the United States has 33,000 estimated suicides each year and that number might be under-estimated by 25 to 50 percent. That should not come as a surprise. The World Health Organization announced that the number one health issue of England, the United States, and Canada is mental illness. The French take anti-depressants at a rate two and half times that of the British; one can only imagine the incidence of mental illness in France. Western society has not only accepted mental illness, the malady has become a norm.
The above statistics serve as background for the issue of mental illness and suicide among our service personnel and veterans who are part of a mentally unhealthy society. Unlike an authority quoted in ALM I do not feel considerable research is required. Societies that have a strong family orientation have low levels of mental illness and suicide. Those societies give people a sense of belongingness. It teaches them the ethics required for positive moral conduct. Western society has destroyed family and is paying the price in the form of increased mental illness and other devastating societal issues.
In focusing more on the military I will first address the passing reference made by the articles to female suicide, which indicated more data was needed on its incidence and more research on its causes. God designed women with the psyche, minds, and bodies necessary to bring life into this world and nurture it. To teach this creation how to kill rather than bring forth life is contrary to its nature and will cause many problems. Do we really need research to support that conclusion?
Why do women enter the military? I remember seeing in the newspapers a picture of a mother in fatigues, helmet and carrying full pack leaving her two infants behind for a tour in Iraq and the caption quoting her words “I need the money.” Is that what the army now consists of; female mercenaries who will kill for money? I thought the reason that men went to war was to protect the motherland, to protect women, children, and future generations. Now that women are going off to war what are we fighting for? Let’s remember that question further on in this essay.
The female soldier’s focus on the motivation of money runs contrary to the natural call to arms. Serving one’s country traditionally consists of giving up ones job for subsistence level wages in the military. During World War II the pay for privates was $21 a month. A humorous song written about Army wages had lyrics that went “$21 a day once a month.” I can remember when my motivation came to enlist in the Navy in 1953. I was employed and well paid as a Merchant Officer with the Military Sea Transportation Service and traded that position in for what was then a low level of pay as a Lieutenant junior grade. I never calculated the pay loss for the two years in which I served on active duty. I considered it a privilege, honor, and duty to serve my country. My father before me enlisted in The American Expeditionary Force in World War I, not for money but as a sense of duty for the new land that gave him opportunity.
Now we have mercenaries defending us.
The nature of warfare has also changed considerably over the years. In World War I enemy combatants would often meet after artillery attacks and share a smoke together. Then they would shake hands, go back to their trenches and do what they had to do. There was a sense of comraderie and an understanding that each man had a family at home that loved him; he wanted to survive and didn’t want to kill any one.
That sense of comraderie with the enemy diminished in World War II when the allied war policy consisted of inflicting as much harm as possible to the civilian population of the enemy with the aim of breaking their will to continue the conflict. American planes killed 150,000 in one bombing in Hamburg and British planes killed 250,000 during another bombing in Dresden. A few hundred thousand Japanese bodies went up in smoke in Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the killing of 500,000 civilians by conventional bombing.
The inflicting of civilian casualties has continued as a part of American combat policy in the Far East. The spraying of Agent Orange and Napalm indiscriminately on the countryside in Vietnam contributed to the 14.25 million casualties in a nation of less than 50 million people.
No well-balanced and rational human being wants to kill or inflict bodily damage on another human being; to do so runs counter to his basic nature. It breaks one of the great commandments. It is one thing to drop bombs on people and not see the resulting blood and gore that results from that action. It is quite another thing to pull the trigger on the gun that kills people or throw the grenade that maims them.
For the sake of this article let’s say that the enemy deserved what they got; we were the good guys and they were the bad guys. But what about us? What has happened to the good guys who inflicted all these casualties on the enemy? The memory of the slaughter of civilians is burned deep in the minds and psyches of the soldiers; it cannot be removed and accounts for many of the psychiatric problems of Vietnam veterans.
It’s one thing to go into combat and do the dirty work required if one has a sense that this activity is helping to protect a way of life he believes in. However, when we get back to the question asked earlier “Now that women are going off to war, what are we fighting for?” the answer becomes more difficult to reach. As our soldiers in the Middle East become aware that increasing numbers of their buddies become afflicted with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when they return to the States, frequently lose custody of their children, and not infrequently end up in prison, they are less inclined to think that it was all worth fighting for.
The situation continues to worsen for our young soldiers. We lure teenagers off the basketball courts and into uniform, psyche them up with KILL, KILL, KILL indoctrination, and turn them loose on other teenagers who maybe were playing basketball or soccer that afternoon. Whether the civilians were killed on purpose, by accident, or in self-defense, the effect on our young soldiers is devastating.
Deprogramming the KILL, KILL, KILL, indoctrination does not come easy and results in questionable success. We are destroying the flower of youth of those in our military. Most efforts to address this issue focus on effects and not causes. It is time that veterans organizations, which always rally to the support of our service personnel, address the underlying causes of why our young men and women are having increasing mental health issues.
Training women to kill is unnatural. Training men and women to kill civilians is unnatural. Having military campaigns without clearly defined objectives is unnatural. Not having strong reasons for protecting our way of life is unnatural. Reducing military service to a high paid job classification is unnatural. Prolonged exposure to an unnatural lifestyle produces mental illness whether in the military or out of it.
The time has come to analyze our lifestyle. Living a natural way of life decreases mental illness and the resulting incidence of suicide.
Note: The mass killing of civilians has reached such an acceptance in Western society that when conducted in the film Avatar no critical condemnation occurred. However, Pandora (the enemy) also had warrior women and a lack of family activity. The film depicted two unnatural, androgynous oriented, and purposeless societies neither of which warranted fighting and dying for.
E.G.
Topics: Elder George | Comments
An Announcement Concerning Blog Comments & Letters to the Editor
| Contributor: | Glenn Sacks [source] | |
| Date: | February 6, 2010 |
Read this article on Glenn's Web site
Topics: Glenn Sacks |
NYTimes: Shortage of college men makes for female “victims”
| Contributor: | Men's Activism News [source] | |
| Date: | February 6, 2010 |
Article here. Not that anyone would find a misandrist slant surprising at the NYT, but now they're claiming that the absence of men on university campuses is really a bigger problem for women. Why? Because the poor women can't find dates. Or because “girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with". Remember that this is the same newspaper that recently ran a whole slew of sympathetic articles claiming that women are only 16% of the military (also men's fault, of course). Where is the sympathetic article about the under-enrollment of men in higher education?
The author is careful to toast "female achievement" and boast about eliminating "affirmative action for boys" while happily dismissing an entire generation of men - particularly black and Hispanic men - who will experience less-than-equal opportunity.
Throughout the article, men are blamed for a shallow "hook-up" culture that somehow harms women. Ask yourself this: how can men be responsible for the "hook-up" culture when the majority of students are women? The rise of that same culture just happens to have coincided with the rise in female enrollment at universities, but you won't find that fact anywhere in the NYT.
A few choice quotes:
As for a man’s cheating, “that’s a thing that girls let slide, because you have to,” said Emily Kennard, a junior at North Carolina. “If you don’t let it slide, you don’t have a boyfriend.”
"the university feels obligated to admit the most qualified applicants, regardless of gender, Mr. Farmer said. “I wouldn’t want any young woman here to think that there’s somebody we’d rather have here than her,” he said."
Remember, it's not bigotry or hate speech when they do it and a woman's feelings still trump your rights every time.
Topics: Men's Activism News | Comments
A different kind of health care reform is needed in America — how men treat themselves
| Contributor: | Men's Activism News [source] | |
| Date: | February 6, 2010 |
I found it refreshing to find an article that approached the issue from multiple directions, not trying to lay the blame on any single issue. Excerpt:
'The reasons have physical, psychological, social and cultural roots. From birth, males are saddled with certain macho expectations which, combined with a misplaced sense of invincibility, ironically leaves them more vulnerable — they take big risks, are reluctant to ask for help, and won’t easily admit pain or weakness.
While these factors continue to exact a heavy toll on men, women’s health care has blossomed (admittedly from a low base), further widening the gender gap and sparking renewed efforts to correct a health system that is arguably under-serving half the population.'
Topics: Men's Activism News | Comments
« Previous Articles