Hannah's Husband Fires Back, Calls My Advice to His Wife 'Disappointing'
January 7th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesIn my recent blog post 'My husband reads your site and is angry at me because 'my feminism' caused all these problems for men', Hannah wrote me a letter saying that she had been a feminist while in college and that now, 18 years later, it's causing problems in her marriage. She wrote:
"My husband has begun reading your website and others and is educating himself on male discrimination. He is extremely angry at me because 'my cause' caused all these problems for men and I 'supported' it. He has been educating me on male discrimination and it is opening my eyes. I no longer wear the label 'feminist' but my personal beliefs and hopes for equality for ALL people have not changed.
"My problem is that my husband's anger is overwhelming and he refuses to acknowledge that I really can see how men are actively discriminated against. I have read a lot of your site. My question for you is, what do you think I can do to show my husband that I do see many of the problems men are facing, and that I advocate fair treatment for all people male/female/white/black/all religions, etc? Please help!!!"
I told Hannah:
"If all is as you describe it, I think your husband is being very unfair to you, and feel free to let him know that I said so."
I also said that "when you were a feminist in college in the 1980s, it was not an unreasonable thing to do" and that it is "ludicrous to hold someone such as yourself personally responsible for the excesses and problems that feminism has created." I concluded:
"I think that many of the husbands reading this blog would be grateful and thankful to have a wife such as yourself, who has made a real effort to try to understand men's and fathers' issues." My full response is here.
There were about 100 responses from readers, some of whom chastised me and sided with Hannah's husband. Hannah's husband Paul recently sent me a 2,600 word response in which he defends himself and calls my viewpoint "disturbing and disappointing." His response is below.
Paul, Hannah's Husband, Replies to My Blog Post
Happy New Year all. May 2008 be a less discriminating time for all people, extra attention being given to men.
I will start by stating my disappointment in Glenn for his blame the victim approach to my quandary and that of men in general. While I do agree that men certainly need to become much more aware and take a stand against the systemic implementation of legalized misandry, to state that “men, as a whole, have not done much to defend themselves” is the equivalent of stating a rape victim as deserving due to her provocative attire and not saying [no] enough or fighting back against the aggressor/rapist. Very disturbing and disappointing viewpoint Glenn.
Glenn let me ask you; would a Jew be grateful to have a former Nazi who supported the evil regime stand next to them simply because this former Nazi now admits that “They were wrong?” All the while this former Nazi does nothing to fix the damage that their former ignorance has inflicted on its victims? I doubt that any Jew would be offering such gleeful appreciation of this one time Nazi. The concept I am expecting is that of paying penance for one's sins. If one has done wrong by someone, they must make efforts to overcome and fix the damage that they have inflicted.
Of all people Glenn, I would expect you to know that without action, words are valueless. What I am looking for is more than hollow words of understanding; I require and desire to see efforts to aid in the undoing of what the former indirect support of [feminism] has caused.
Lastly in my direct response to Glenn, I disagree that in the 80’s women had legitimate grievances. The original purpose of the feminist movement was to grant women the unearned equal rights of their male peers. A noble and honorable cause that they achieved many many years ago.
I say “unearned” equal right for the following reasons. Let us remember that not too long ago the only people with any rights at all, were the ruling elite. Men, not women, took up arms and suffered horrid deaths that none of us can even comprehend, in efforts of earning the right to vote etc. Today this still remains true. The extreme vast majority of blood that is spilled in defense of these rights, is that of men. In fact, if any woman suffers at all she becomes a hero [Jessica Lynch]. All for doing less than the cumulative millions of her military male counterparts/peers.
Is any one of us foolish to believe that a man is the true equal of a woman or that a woman is the true equal of a man? I hope that we are not, as only a fool will argue otherwise. The current belief of Contemporary American Feminism Theory pushes equality through likeness not equality through value. Men and Women are neither alike nor equal. We both bring strong attributes and natural skills to the table that enhances one another’s skill sets. A man and a woman are stronger together when each uses the skills that nature has given them, than either is alone.
Now on to my wife’s question to Glenn and a more complete context of the issue we are facing. Allow me to start by stating that I do have an amazing wife. She is very supportive and I am very lucky to have her stand by my side as is she to have me by hers. She is very intelligent and educated. As time passes and with each discussion she becomes more aware and sensitive to the systemic discrimination that not only the current generation of men face, but the horrible future of enslavement that her son will be subjected to in the future.
Thank you H! I hope that you do know that I love you even when I am in my raging rants! Your support and understanding and most importantly open minded, fair approach makes you all the more remarkable not only as a woman but as a person.
Your complaint of my directing my anger at “You” is a fair one and I have addressed this issue. This was an initial reaction that was fueled by more than just this gender/feminist war. I was angered when you listened to the only femnazi poster on this board whose suggestion of throwing in my face the vindication that is offered by Glenn’s opinion. Instead you should have listened to other posters like Jay who offered you much better insight into my state of mind and how you can help me. The act of being sympathetic to my plight and validating my anger and outrage. Followed by supporting the actual cause and belief that you claim was your original intent when blindly proclaiming your association with Feminism. Now, after angry exchanges between us, you finally see this. Again we are on the same side and are stronger for our alliance, making us both more able to assure the equality we both desire.
I want to assure you and all women that I have no desire to oppress women or men. I desire true equality and fairness for all people of all genders. But most importantly, I want a better world for our children. We are destroying any hope of happiness that is attained through a real loving relationships where we both partners are needed as parents. Where we are partners for common gain and happiness, where we do not see one another as adversaries or enemies. One where we need not always be prepared to protect ourselves while always being armed and prepared to engage in war, The Gender War.
Make no mistake; no one will EVER win this war. Men need women, Women need men. So why are feminists engaging in a war that produces only losers?
Men are being forced to fight what will be a bloody, brutal battle. Remember, men are designed by nature to be natural warriors. In the end we will have terribly unhappy adults and children that we are responsible for destroying. We will be responsible for their unhappiness. We will be responsible for the missing fulfillment that they feel. We will be responsible for the demise of society and morality that they will be forced to live in.
Knowing of Hannah’s intellect is why I am so disappointed that she unknowingly allowed herself to be exploited by the very movement she once supported. Unfortunately, ignorance is not an excuse. Personally I would be very angry with any masculinist group that intentionally deceived me and would take up arms against it if it had ever misused my name, my gender and the system in such an evil way and under the guise of equality.
I am also convinced that the vast majority of women today do NOT support modern Contemporary American Feminism and its goal of total supremacy and male discrimination. I believe, from my discussions with so many 20-40 yrs old women, that they miss the pleasures and glory that once came with being a woman, not a perceived oppressor of men. They miss chivalry and the pleasures of male attention to them as ladies. Sadly for all of them, those days are gone.
I often do rant when I read how another female sex offender will not spend one day in jail for raping 5 young boys while her male counterparts are serving 15 to life and demonized by the media!
I do rage when I go to a bar and watch as women get in free and drink free while men have to pay a cover and for all the drinks. I have heard so many women say its not fair but I am yet to meet or even hear of one woman who has refused to embrace this preferred gender. Why wouldn’t all feminists refuse such clear gender based discrimination if they truly were interested in equality? Shouldn’t such behavior be considered insulting to feminists and anyone seeking equality for all?
I do rant when I recall having to wait until I was 30 for my car insurance rates to drop while women wait until 25 years of age.
I do rant when I recall my refusal into Naval Flight Training because only women were being given guaranteed flight slots.
I do rant when I am denied access to “women’s only” health clubs and facilities when the same businesses for men only” were all shut down by outraged women so many years ago.
I was diagnosed with a lump in my chest (breast) years ago. Originally it was diagnosed as atypical later to be changed to typical meaning non malignant. The problem here is when I went for medial care, with all the money being spent on breast cancer, no equipment was able to properly test me (a man). I was looked at as though I was a pervert in the waiting rooms as I waited to be seen for my test. With all of the money spent on breast cancer how can this be? Not one dime to deal with the male version of the same disease, only women seem to matter, let the men die.
I get angry when I recall my childhood and being manipulated by my mother who, as I can see now as an adult, ritualistically abused my father both physically and mentally right in front of her children and defended it by stating he was an evil son of a bitch who abused her, as she hid behind my fathers male chivalry. Her manipulation caused my father to lose everything, his family and children included. She abused him, yet she was protected by the courts and rewarded for her actions.
I get angry when I watch television or a movie and a woman kicks/punches or physically harms a man or damages his property and everyone laughs. What if it were a woman being beaten? Can you imagine the outrage? (Anyone seen Carrie Underwoods video?)
If not for my anger, even Hannah herself admits, that she would never have become aware of the systemic problem of legalized male discrimination.
Read Paul's full response at Paul, Hannah's Husband, Replies to My Blog Post.
"));
19 queries. 1.425 seconds.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
[...] [Late note: Hannah's husband has responded to my response to his wife--see my post Hannah's Husband Fires Back, Calls My Advice to His Wife 'Disturbing and Disappointing'.] [...]
January 7th, 2008 at 1:15 am
I think they have deeper issues than feminism on their plate. My quick read is the wife understands things have gone too far against men at this point and is concerned about it. Additionally, she doesn't want to be blamed for the legacy of feminism in the 80s which she was a part of while her husband cannot forgive her for some reason. Any comparison to the Nazis makes no sense at all and is quite alarming by itself.
Glenn must throw his hands in the air a few times everyday and I am sure this was one of those occasions.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Glenn, for what it's worth I think you are going about this the right way.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I can understand the husbands position.
And yes, it's not all the card carrying feminists that are responsible, in fact it may be the males that mislead these women who should be held even more responsible!!
Most women are just regurgitating agit-prop!!!! But the males may not be let off the hook so easy!!
January 7th, 2008 at 2:04 am
The issue in America is that a thriving slave trade has emerged in male economic flesh.
All the marketplace forces and PC "spin" have aligned to justify this very sick and very profitable trade.
This is a greed-driven, turbo-charged, money-printing machine which permits the least competent bungling lawyers, "psychologists", "therapists" and other low-life unemployed parasites a chance to feed like kings at the table of America's family courts, where "judges" who could not qualify for any other judicial post (like a real one) can finally delude themselves into thinking they've "arrived" and that they are "important".
In America's family courts, we have the bottom of the barrel of
1. judges,
2. lawyers,
3. psychologists
earning money beyond their wildest dreams and way beyond their economic value or competence.
PLUS, you have Title IVd money pouring into the coffers of bumbling state governments.
Now who is going to pry all of this undeserved economic opportunity from these low-average-IQ, fat-faced, family looting, child-torturing, man-enslaving pigs?
How is change going to come about when "change" means ending this money-gushing enterprise?
Do you think all these fat-faced pigs are going to just find other work? Do you think they are even competent to do any other work at nearly the same pay? (Hint: family court lawyers are a joke in the field of law. A bad joke. Those psychologists who hang around family court do so because they couldn't build their own patient roster based on referrals and/or they are greed-driven by the fantasy rate they get which they call their "forensic rate" a.k.a. 3 to 5 times what health insurance would pay them per hour)
No folks, this one looks like it is going to be a very, very ugly mess.
So how many slaves has this nasty little industry created in America? Tens of millions.
And how many professional pigs are being fed by the slave trade? Hundreds of thousands?
And how many state governments have massive incentives to keep the slave trade going? 50
It is hard to find a precedent in human history where any abuse of one class of people by another of this scale ended in any way but badly. The problem is compounded by the fact that the exploiter class are seriously lacking in economic alternatives. Most are completely stuck being family blood-sucking parasites. They really cannot find an alternative way to make their undeserved incomes.
Wish it weren't the case, but my prediction is that this is going to end very, very badly.
It amazes me that those who participate in this horrid business cannot see themselves for what they are and what they are doing. But that's always how holocausts go isn't it? The actors on the ground just keep destroying others for profit, and don't question what or why.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Some people just can't make an argument without citing da Nahzeez. Or slavery, for that matter.
But Glenn, something that I am curious to know definitively: do you think feminists have any legitimate grievances today?
January 7th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Either this fella needs to take a breath and acknowledge that his wife is trying (however imperfect her efforts may or may not be) to be his ally, or these folks have some deeper issues at play.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Harq,
What is happening to men in this country has no more to do with feminism than did the slave trade in early America have to do with saving the "heathens" from godless Africa.
But saving the heathens from godless Africa was used by some then, like feminism is used by some today, to provide moral justification for the enslavement of men for money.
It is offensive to my sensibilities that anyone in this country can believe that the large scale exploitation of any group can occur in the U.S. without there being strong economic forces in the mix.
Such beliefs are completely naive.
Personally, I get exhausted at the constant recycling of feminism in this blog as if it is the strong causal force behind what is being done to men in America. Feminism is no more than a fringe movement in America. The vast majority of women in America don't identify themselves as feminists, AND they don't even know any feminists personally.
"Feminism" is a straw-figure in this blog which keeps getting recycled -- or used as a bayonette dummy -- when it has little to do with the exploitation of males in America.
Economics has much to do with it. Men are being exploited for profit, NOT to bring some vaguely defined rights to women.
And anyone who continues to confuse readers here by feeding them fictions such as the complete fiction that the actual forces at work in his mess are "feminism", is doing those readers a serious disservice, while actually HELPING the TRUE VILLANS -- those who are benefiting massively by this fraudulent system of running a slave trade through America's family courts -- by helping to hold up the curtain behind which they are hiding while destroying families at a record clip.
The culture of descriminating against men has grown out of the economic profit taking from exploiting men.
Just like the culture of descriminating against blacks in America grew out of the economic practice of importing and exploiting Africans as slaves.
Again, it is an EXTREME disservice to readers of this blog to keep waving the "feminist" faux-enemy in front of their faces. I find it to be a manipulative exercise which stirs readers up, and distracts them from what is really going on in America.
The price of distracting readers is that if dilutes their focus on the real culprits in all of this, and it is divisive with respect to men and women, who should not be divided over artificially (editorially) invented and amplified differences, but should be UNIFIED over the horrible damage being done to all men and women and families and children by this systematic dismemberment of American families for profit -- the profit of lawyers, psychologists, judges, and state treasuries.
There is a true "crime against humanity" going on in the U.S. family court system and it is a strongly economically motivated crime. All with any sense of responsibility in this blog should stop duping the vulnerable into seeing this as a gender war, despite how it may stimulate posting while it is further confusing those drawn into posting.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:29 am
By the way, for those who don't have a natural tendency to seek out economic explanations for the large national travesties which occur in this country, maybe you should think about these:
- Weren't extreme profit incentives and unbridled greed behind the current crisis in sub-prime lending, with all of its presently visible fallout of people losing their homes? Was this driven by economics, or was it because of some social justice need to give poor people access to housing? Hmm. The same people who are now losing their homes and so deep in debt they will never get out? That is social justice? Right.
-What about the incentives behind the silent but deadly ballooning of personal credit card debt in America, with interest rates rapidly ratcheting up to 29% on people who found credit card offers stuffed daily into their home mailboxes? Was that driven by economics? By a heartfelt desire to give access to personal credit to the less advantaged?
When a large group of people in America are getting economically injured, the lesson is clear: look for the profiting party. Invariably they are driving, expanding and protecting their exploitation opportunity at the legislative level. And invariably, they are looking for noble "causes" to hide behind while they rape and pillage.
It is a disservice to society to focus on the symptom (the raising of the women's rights curtain) rather than the vicious greed merchants hiding behind the curtain. It is also naive.
It's a New Year. Maybe all should wake up and smell the carnage.
And stop blaming it on the curtain behind which the true murders of families are hiding.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:35 am
I think nearly everything he said was spot on. What's with all the Dr. Phil wannabees around here? Deeper issues in their marriage? What you really seem to be saying is he should capitulate to her playing the 'poor me' victim card, and water down his views accordingly. It reminds me of that old saying "when mom's happy, everyone's happy." I think sister needs to tighten up her belt and stop being emotionally manipulative, if she's really on our side.
Please tell me where his evaluation of the situation w/ regard to gender inequity is factually incorrect.
FTR I find nazi analogies to be pure hyperbole, as well as distasteful, in nearly all cases. That doesn't change the facts.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Harq: does Glenn think feminists have legitimate grievances?
I can answer this one. Yes he does. He's, in fact, very willing to talk about the legitimate points that feminists have. Look back, and you'll see he's very sympathetic.
Sadly, this hasn't won him many points on their side: there aren't a surplus of feminists out there who will let it be known when Glenn has legitimite points. The most popular feminist blogs self-identify as his enemies.
A hilarious example of this is Salon's Broadsheet which seems to have a policy of consciously avoiding linking to Glenn's site, even on occasions where Glenn has written extensively on the points Broadsheet wishes to make. (And it's not like they don't know about him-- they slandered him on one occasion, never again to return to him.)
January 7th, 2008 at 8:54 am
People say they 'get it' all the time. If you have a lot invested in a person's opinion, if that opinion is valuable and important to you, if you feel strongly about the subject the opinion is sought on sometimes a person saying they 'get it' can ring hollow.
This is not to say that the opinion is hollow that the words are empty but it can feel like that.
My personal experience with such things is the one side needs to take the other at their word. The other needs to make their word good.
I hope that isn't too "Dr. Phil."
January 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am
The rest of my reply that was not posted.
ANGER… Please all men everywhere do not skip this anger phase. It is terribly important as to assuring that you get heard! The loudest voice gets heard, the squeaky wheel gets oiled and many of the silent allies of feminism will remain in the dark until men like me/us express our anger and demand to be heard! Do not let western notions of chivalrous behavior enslave you any longer! Note, as posted by a women, in this very blog, “what are you a wimp”, the use of expected slavery of males via western notions of chivalrous behavior (typically expected by woman) is used to challenge a man’s masculinity in efforts to get the desired response. Even a man has posted a challenge to my masculinity via notions of chivalrous behavior in his statement of “manning up and not complaining about.” What exactly is “manning up?” I was unaware that complaining was reserved for women only. Neither my masculinity nor any other mans masculinity is or should be measured by his servitude to the privileged class of women. What is your definition of a man? What definition do you want for you son?
Men must no longer allow their masculinity to be defined by the indoctrination of slave like notions of chivalry that serve to only further promote female privilege.
Chivalry must die and be left dead.
I am, what some may call, a gym rat / body builder and I do get much frustration out on the iron. Unlike what is suggested by some here, I have no desire to terminate my anger with the current state of male discrimination via kick boxing or any other one off version of physically violent behavior. My anger needs to be directed, shouted and heard. What would women have said if men suggested “You should go to more sewing and cooking classes, it gets your anger out and makes you forget how oppressed you are?”
I also must not direct that anger at Hannah. She is not only my best ally but she is also my best friend, my wife and the mother of my children. She is my strongest supporter and the love of my life. I have no problem admitting my dependency and need of her in my life.
For those to whom it is not clear, what I and so many men are angry about, let me clarify.
I/We are tired of being a financial provider for women.
I/We do matter and are needed in the lives of our children.
I/We will not allow ourselves to be enslaved by current legislation.
I/We will no longer allow and stand idle for the systemic legalization of misandry.
I/We will not allow a woman to do our job for more money, less work and less quality.
I/We will not be villainized by the simple virtue of being male.
Our blood will be spilled equally in defense of OUR rights/country.
I/We are neither a rapist nor a pedophile simply because we are men.
I/We will NOT stand quietly to the legalization and legalization of male discrimination.
I/We will NOT pay for women’s privileges because we are male.
I/We will NOT be enslaved by modern notions of chivalrous behavior.
I/We will NOT be quiet because that is what you desire.
Yes, women see this as a slavery rebellion! This stands to take away all the ill gotten gains and privilege that has been attained under the lies of extreme feminists at the cost of all men everywhere.
We ask NOTHING more than exactly what the original feminist movement asked prior to its hijacking. EQUALITY!
It has been stated, and I agree, that I need to start taking more meaningful action against this oppressor.
“Anger precedes Action”
Hannah’s ignorance led to my oppression and to the systemic legalization of both male discrimination and misandry. I am sorry to those that disagree but yes, she and all others who choose to take on the label of “Feminist” also take on the responsibility of that label, its movement and all that it is responsible for. There is a lot of accountability that comes with ones choices even if that choice was made in ignorance. Without support from all of its members (silent or vocal), legislation of anti male laws could never have happened. Anyone, silent or vocal, who associates themselves with these groups, assumes the accountability of those groups’ actions! No, Hannah herself if not responsible for modern male slavery, but strength comes in numbers! She was a number. She holds some accountability.
The time has come, that time is now. While we are the enslaved victims of Contemporary American Feminist Theory, our sons are the next generation to be enslaved by it. Are we, their fathers, uncles, brothers and friends, prepared to allow these boys to fall into the same fate as we have? Men, who were too afraid to take a stand and say “NO MORE?” My son, your son, all the boys of future generations are counting on us to free them from the tight grasp of female privilege that has come and continues to come at the cost of male rights and freedom. I for one will not go to my grave knowing that I did nothing to try and free them from the same fate that my generation of males has allowed to render them utilitarian and strictly functional for female entitlement. Our forefathers shed their blood for our democratic/political freedoms. I will now stand and fight and shed my blood on that same honorable battlefield. The battlefield for freedom.
This is a war, stand up and fight like the centuries of courageous men before you.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Anonymous Pamphateer has some great points.
But the feminists benefit just as much or more than the judges/lawyers/parasites. Feminists/women are full-fledged partners in the extortion machine and supply the votes to keep things going. This is why they need to get the big child support payments to make up for the equity liquidated to pay the parasites.
So fathers are up against votes (women) and cash (feminist judicial system, approaching 100% women judges/psychologists etc where I am).
We cannot win but I am signing up for
www.f4jusa.com
for mental health reasons.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Harq al-Ada Says "Glenn, something that I am curious to know definitively: do you think feminists have any legitimate grievances today?"
Yes, I do.--GS
January 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I all I can say is that if he can't get along with the female he is currently married too just hope he doesn't have children by her cause that is a play that is expensive blaming her for all the past grievances of womankind. Really, Glenn you think there are legitimate grievances against women that are not shared by men? Like what?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I think he needs to place more of the blame, for everything he is talking about, where it truly belongs … squarely on the shoulders of men.
No one ever got anywhere blaming all their problems on someone else. Men need to accept responsibility for their situation and do something about it.
Don’t wait for the other guy to do it … “Just do it”.
Men are mostly “responsible” for this problem. If that makes me guilty of blaming the victim, then I’m guilty, guilty, guilty!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I just want to comment quickly on the Nazi argument. I think the reason people throw that out there so repetetively and predictably is because it may be the last and most memorable thing we, as a society, agreed was evil. It was a political party, not a race or "culture" so it is acceptable from both wings to demonize and "discriminate" against. It is as close to a common viewpoint of evil as we have. How effective would it be to argue using satan and demons with an atheist? Arguing the evils of communism has no effect anymore because of how many cheerleaders it has in the modern world. I think it is overused as an example because people have no other example to use to describe evil.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
AP:
I just went back to read your posts after making my comment.
Welcome back, and try not to stay away for so long, I was getting real thirsty for some good old fashioned truth.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I take AP's position in this as being an a-priori assumption, an absolute truth, not because he is always right (which he is), but because it is the same conclusion that I have reached. It does Hannah's husband, nor any of us, any good to get angry at our wives, our ex's, or feminists, but merely feeds the economic beast to which AP refers. If this young man wants to hold anyone accountable, let it be the shyster lawyers and judges, as well as politicians like Joe Biden and Bill Clinton!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Hey guys (Paul included):
Don't you think it's enough with the Nazi analogies, already? Stop blaming "feminism" for your problems. The irony of it is that if you ask "feminists" what the problem is, they have virtually the same complaints that you do, but in reverse, i.e., men are getting sole custody, courts discriminate against mothers, the media portrays women in a negative light etc.. So don't you think that means the problem is really something else?
Yeah, there are screwed up feminists, just like there are screwed up MRAs. But, if you're really serious about "equality", knock off the feminist bashing -- which crosses over into misogyny more than you realize -- and look at PEOPLE, perhaps starting with looking at the only people that you can change, i.e., youselves as individuals.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I have read every word, of Pauls' post, and I agree with every single word.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
"The irony of it is that if you ask "feminists" what the problem is, they have virtually the same complaints that you do"
Carnasee, what you're failiing to acknowledge is that feminsts have a powerful lobby that absolutely does promote discrimination against men. They were responsble for passing California Health & Safety Code Section 124250 which defines "domestic violence" so that men cannot be victims. The same with many other anti-male discriminatory statutes in California, including statutes that give programs only to incarcerated moms but not incarcerated dads. Two years ago a gay rights group in California tried to make 124250 gender neutral to include all victims, but guess who made them change it back? Feminist groups. I can show you the official documentation of that on the California Legislative website. Just look up the legislative history of Assembly Bill 2051 for the year 2006. Get that. FEMINIST groups forcing gay groups to revert back to excluding male victims.
In Congress, when MRA's went there and spent several weeks of volunteer time trying to get even a small gender-neutrality clause into the VAWA, FEMINIST groups fought them and insisted that VAWA's title remain gender-specific and even fought against the gender-neutrality clause. In India, feminist groups are pushing for a domestic violence law that excludes male victims from being able to report their abusive wives. http://indiapost.com/article/immigration/1765/
In Sweden, the feminist majority pushed to create a "man tax."
In the UN, feminists actually tried to make it so aid to Africa only went to African women, not men.
There are COUNTLESS examples of this. They also fight against shared parenting laws, commissions on the status of men, prosecution of false accusers, etc.
I do not say that all feminists are this way. There are some feminists, and even some feminist groups, who do not follow that mentality, in whole or in part. One of them is a feminist professor who invites me to speak at UCLA every year to her gender studies class. But they are not the ones in power. They are the minority. I think that is slowly changing, but I totally disagree when you say these feminists are the extreme examples. They're not. These are the mainstream feminists. They are the ones that have the power, much more so than the rest. This doesn't mean I think our focus should be feminist-bashing. I agree with others that anti-male discrimination is caused by many other sources than just feminist. The male-only draft is one example. But I disagree with you that the feminists who promote discrimination against men are only the minority or the "screwed up" ones. They are, without a doubt, the mainstream ones.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
AP (and others): I agree that the economic forces in family law courts are powerful and are hard at work against change. However, they never would have been allowed to operate in their current mode if it weren't for the "feminist" ideological extremes which are, of course, ultimately just blatant sexism in a cheap suit. Severe injustices are always fed by some kind of ideology. (As a somewhat silly example, the courts would not allow people to suddenly just gang up on redheads out of nowhere, unless someone came up with an ideology that showed that the things that people with red hair do are often bad or damaging.)
Along these lines, we cannot expect to change the system until we challenge the ideology itself in a way that resonates with most people. People have to reject the ideology and replace it with a better one before they will demand real change in the legal system. In our case, this should not be so hard. In my experience, most people already basically buy that it is unfair to take a man's children away from him for no good reason. We have to tap into this basic belief in fairness and show people the reality of the ways in which it is being violated. The only way the economic forces of the family law courts will grind to a halt is if they are forced to do so by an angry public.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Marc A: Sorry, this is somewhat out of the stream of the discussion, but you seem to be very familiar with the law. I've read in Stephen Baskerville's book that the federal courts stay out of family law issues because of something called the "domestic relations exception." As a result, I guess these courts never address issues of the constitutionality of even the most egregious family law abuses. Is this a current "whim" or a widely accepted policy that would be difficult to change? It seems to me that one way to change what is going on is to fight for the civil rights of parents. (And children, for that matter.) But will it ever be possible to approach the higher courts with these arguments? I thought they were in place to prevent just this sort of thing! Thanks.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Perhaps we need to redefine what it is that we all want to be seen as. If we all want the same things then why not stop separating ourselves and fighting with one another and work for our alleged same goals? Equality, FOR ALL. Perhaps from now on I will refer to myself not as a Masculinist or MRA or even a feminist, but instead an EQUALIST. Fair and equal treatment for all people regardless of gender or any other qualifying means for segregation.
As an Equalist I will stand to enforce the equal rights for all people. Men and women. How many feminists would be willing to join this and stop only promoting their goal of entitlement?
Change your label. Are you willing Canarsee?
January 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Paul “hannah’s husband” I agree with you on the blame the victim mentality. I understand Glenn’s point, but something about the way he says it comes across as offensive to me.
However, I don’t agree with the rest of your post. We are not at a stage in the men’s rights movement that we can allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. While it is hurtful to you that she made certain choices earlier in her life, the important thing is that she is on the right side NOW.
More importantly, I think you need to forgive your wife. Not just for her benefit, but for yours. Carrying around such anger, especially for someone you love and who loves you, must become such a burden. I think you will be much happier and productive if forgive.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Jeff.
Thank you for being one of the few posters concerned for my wife and me. You, again, could not be more RIGHT. I have forgiven her. Like I mentioned in my response to Glenn, I will no longer direct my anger at Hannah at all. In fact I am and will continue to support her equality causes as much as she is mine! This is about equality not privilege. While our son is the next generation of victims of legalized misandry, he is much better off witnessing fairness and love from within the family. Thank you for your level headed, fair handed advice and caring!
January 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
"will it ever be possible to approach the higher courts with these arguments?"
Betsy, I'm not sure and I'm not really the best person to ask. I only know certain specific things relating to express discrimination against men written directly into the law. I don't know quite as much about the more implicit forms of it and our ability to challenge it, which would require more research for me to answer. However, I know that there is a major federal case decision in which feminist groups sued on behalf of "battered women" against the government to stop "due process" violations in which battered women were allegedly routinely being denied access to their children. The evidence was based on a bunch of sworn declarations that feminist and DV groups obtained using the connections they had. I believe they won an injunction. They groups never included battered men or fathers, even though this happens to them too and they certainly could have been included in the decision. I think this case can be used as a protocal for a similar lawsuit on behalf of men. But it would take a lot of work. We need the attorneys and we need a concerted effort involving lots of groups who can get the men's sworn declarations, in large numbers, not just a few. We would have to do exactly what the feminist groups did, but without the funding and power that they had. It can be done, but I'm not about to be the one to take this huge task on. I do what I can, but I'm not going to commit suicide. I work full time for a construction law firm. I don't do family law. I only do a few pro bono cases on the side relating to paternity fraud or equal protection where the discrimination is explicit.
I'm all for a concerted effort like this. But someone else will have to organize it. There are so many attorneys out there who do family law full time, like Levy, and those connected with groups like ACFC, who have much more ability to do this than I do. I can get you the case if you want.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Marc A.: Yes, I would really like to see this case. I'm so totally not an lawyer, but this kind of effort seems to me like it might pay off if organized properly...
January 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Paul Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
[As an Equalist I will stand to enforce the equal rights for all people. Men and women. How many feminists would be willing to join this and stop only promoting their goal of entitlement?]
I think that’s a good point.
Feminism by its very definition speaks only to the concerns of “feminists” specifically and women in general terms.
The “NAACP” strives to advance the rights of “People of Color” specifically, and oppressed “minorities” in general.
The “Arian Brotherhood and the KKK” … well, need I say more.
A lot of people would scoff at the comparison between these groups of people, but I think they all share a common denominator, and that is the advancement of their own “agenda” without equal consideration for others; at the expense of us all.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Betsy, I'll email you separately on this.
Kevin, I agree with what you're saying but I still think we need an explicit "men's rights" movement and a "fathers' rights" movement. The explicit rights of men and fathers have been excluded and neglected for way too long and so an explicit men's/fathers' rights movement is called for.
Men are the only group in the world who can be explicitly excluded from an international ban on slavery and forced labor without any of the 172 member nations, or any known civil rights group like Amnesty International, making any objection to it. They're the only birth group explicitly targetted for higher taxes by modern, mainstream political movements and economists. Yes, there is definitely a need for a men's/fathers' rights movement to explicitly counter that and other biases against men. Even if the gender-neutral groups (like Cal. Alliance for Families and Children) wind up the ones that are more listened to (and I'm not sure that's true; NCFM, Sacks, F4J and Fathers and Families have all been receiving increasing media coverage), I think the men's/fathers' rights movement will still be the undercurrent that draws attention to those groups.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Paul,
Our family courts and the scamming, bottom-of-the-barrel "professionals" (sic) who sell services there are hoping against hope that
1. some female with sperm-trap your son,
2. some famale with and Axis I disorder (post-partum, etc.) will be persuaded by some complicit therapist that her medically based unhappiness is the fault of her husband (your son), or
3. some other perturbation will occur between your son and some female with whom he has a child, whether married or not, which causes her to stumble onto one of the many well greased, down-sloping paths leading to family court in America.
Then they will gut your son and the mother financially, and at the end of the gutting, they will sell him into contemporary American slave-chains which will make him a prisoner for two decades within this "free country", via an electronic tether comprised of his social security number and that electronic payroll systems operated by companies such as ADP et al.
And when he stumbles in his slave duties, not making enough money some year to pay the mandated slave payments thru the designated electronic circuit and U.S./State slave control agency, they will throw your son in jail for his horribly irresponsible behavior.
The reason all of this is going on against men in America is that it is an incredibly profitable business for the participants.
They will do it to your son for their gain.
And I would hope that you will not be swayed by that time by the false notion that this is all about rights for women or feminism.
Wouldn't classic feminism would have your SON caring for the child at home while the woman enjoyed an equal-to-male career? How is any of this the result of feminism and equality for women? It isn't.
Women are being used as pawns in this money game, and "feminism" and "women's rights" have been hijacked and used as a smoke screen to give cover to the largest racketeering enterprise to ever take root in this country: America's family-murdering and looting and male-enslaving "family" courts.
"Misandry" is simply the aggregate pattern of treatment against men who have in fact, been sold as a class into a court-profiting slave trade. The elements of misandry flow FROM the primary activities against men -- e.g., excessive child support => deadbeat dads => media-driven images of irresponsible fathers => and increase in negative sentiment against men. Trace these things back to the primary source of causation here. It is not women or any women't group who might like to position itself to take credit for this "progress".
There was lots of negative spin on blacks back when they were slaves which had nothing to do with their slavery per se. Imagine: a free black man kidnapped from Africa in chains => black man now on plantation upset at being a forced labor prisoner => black man pushes back against slave owner => images of dangerous, violent blacks => government sanctioned smack-downs on blacks on plantations => tons of negative spin against blacks which they as a class are still paying for in this country. All because greedy American slave traders kidnapped then from their homelands.
You and your wife need to fan away the various smoke screens which have risen and confused people about what is really going on and recognize that you need to guide and protect your son. Not from "misandry" but from looting and slavery based on any and all instances in which he finds himself involved in reproduction with a female in the U.S. If your family has significant assets or income or your son ends up earning a high income, he will be a very desirable target for the family court sponsored trade in male slave flesh.
You owe it to him to keep him away from that outcome. It will ruin his life.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The implicit law of our forefathers would speak to the rights of the father. The concept that children needed their mothers only went as far as weening them from nursing. In our current political policy, these implicit rights of fathers will never be acknowledged by the courts and most likely the other side will litigate state and federal policy to muddy the waters more. That is why the platform of equality for both parents must be pushed very hard to the point where they have to have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the other parent is unfit to get anything but a 50/50 custody split.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Forced Labour Convention of 1930, Article 11 says:
"Only adult able-bodied MALES who are of an apparent age of not less than 18 and not more than 45 years may be called upon for forced or compulsory labour."
http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029
This is an ACTIVE treaty with 172 nations signed on. Vietnam just joined in 2007.
Slavery and forced labor are not obsolete. There are numerous reports of it worldwide (Burma, Ivory Coast.) In China, owners of male slaves can't be prosecuted; only females are protected.
"'Those traffickers who lure migrant workers, mainly adult males, to do forced labor will not be convicted as the criminal code only covers those who traffic women and children,' Guan Zhongzhi, a lawyer with Zhonghuan Law Firm told chinadaily.com.cn. The legal loophole has put male victims in an awkward position when fighting against their traffickers in the court of law."
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/15/content_895414.htm
Yes, we need a MEN'S rights movement.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
And I thought feminists were narrow-minded. I see why an army of one beats attempting to organize men. I sure hope he opens his eyes and see the monsters that men face.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
After reading the rant I dont think he has any deeper issues other then the possibility that his wife Hannah is now coming around to seeing that maybe Andrea Dworkin and her like may have been wrong. He is dead on about the "women only" health clubs and establishments that are accepted by our society yet a "male only" club or organization is chastized for being "old fashioned" or chauvenistic.
His anger is well justifed and taking a "kinder gentler" approach is what has led us to this situation we find ourselves in today. We (Men in general) can ill afford to bury our head in the sand and hope that this situation blows over. There is a certain amount of civil disobedience that needs to occur before ANYONE with the power to address the problem takes notice.
While im not near as passionate as Anon Pham I do agree with many of the points he made.
1.Women do have a tendancy to demand equality while hiding behind the chivalry they pretend to disdain.
2.They do not refeuse those things which detract from thier desire for equal treatment (ie Ladies Night)
3.They still cling to (if they followed thier own advice) those outmoded institutions like the man pays for everything when they go out. Wouldnt a REAL feminist demad they go dutch or she pay?
I realize these seem trivial but they are a good example of the hypocrisy that exists within the verymovement that is trying to make ALL men unnessecary in the home, family, workplace and trivialize and diminish the contributions that many men make in those instances.
Just my 2 cents.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Marc A. Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
[Kevin, I agree with what you're saying but I still think we need an explicit "men's rights" movement and a "fathers' rights" movement. The explicit rights of men and fathers have been excluded and neglected for way too long and so an explicit men's/fathers' rights movement is called for.]
@Marc:
I didn’t mention men’s/father’s rights for that reason. Most of them only want true equality; the same cannot be said of the aforementioned groups.
I don’t mind that you’re commenting on something I posted Marc, but do me a favor and try not to read too much into my comments, and pay more attention to what I actually said.
Thanks
January 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Feminists and women in general are the economic class that drive this exploitation of men and children. The feminists cook up the schemes and the majority of women implement them. The media and the courts simply jumped on the economic band wagon. It's like all the peaceful, moderate and radical Muslims nonsense. Where are all the moderate Muslim protesters hiding when the radicals are wreaking having?: Nowhere because peaceful and moderate Muslims don't exist. They're all one team. I will continue to cast a suspicious eye at most women because they can stop the feminist agenda but refuse to because in their opinions they have too much to lose. Even if their self serving gains are at the expense of men and children.
Nazi analogies to feminism are perfect because they are both human rights eating machines. If you study Hitler's tactics against the Jews in the 1930's you will see that the game plans of feminism are EXACTLY the same. Only difference is that feminists have killed far more people than the Nazi's could ever hope to. And yes, feminists are turning up the heat to include concentration camps and gas chambers because they have absolutely no respect for life, men or children.
Hannah's husband fails to understand the power of words. As a matter of fact, words are our most powerful weapons. They don't call this the information age for nothing. So men and women continue spreading the anti-feminist word and watch as we slay the feminist fire-breathing dragon.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Uhh, I just feel like I have to chime in here and point out that not all women expect men to pay for dates, not all women like women-only health clubs, and not all women go to Ladies Night. Of course, I like it when my husband takes me out to dinner and buys me gifts. I also like it when I take him out to dinner and buy him gifts...
January 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Thats great Betsy and I applaud your modern notions. You are a member of the .000000000001 that does
**chuckles**
January 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
^^ Some bears ARE Vegetarians
All women come with the Presumption of Entitlement by Default.
Its now functionally illegal for men to Presume anything concerning women with the exception of their Cost:
Favoritism in the family courts, False Claims for added advantage in embarassing situations, and the presumption of being alienated form your childrens lives {PAS}. Mens Sperm-No CHOICE. Paternity Fraud. Rape Hysteria. Female Domestic Abuse. Lack of Prosecution for Felonies. Kipnapping Children-secreting them to other states/countries. Infidelity and Coercement of the Media, Theft of resources from men. Undocumented Expenditure of Child Support. False charges of Rape.Denial of Visitation, Shunning of COURT ORDERS, All with an unending stream of MISANDRY which destroys the success in life of a Fathers offspring-relationship/marriage-wise.
Betsey Barton, I KNOW not all WOMEN are like that. But, women required less to throttle all men.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
"I do not say that all feminists are this way. There are some feminists, and even some feminist groups, who do not follow that mentality, in whole or in part. One of them is a feminist professor who invites me to speak at UCLA every year to her gender studies class. But they are not the ones in power. They are the minority."
They're not even consistently accepted as feminists. But the extreme, misandric ones who unconditionally support female privilege and entitlements, always acknowledged as feminists with a capital F.
This is a big part of the reason why feminists get perhaps a bigger share of the criticism than they deserve, when probably a bigger problem is the legions of ordinary women who disdain the name "feminist" because of its unattractive connotations while still eager for the female privileges that feminism is working to keep, and men who have not yet shaken off the paternalistic chivalry that keeps them from holding women fully equal and accountable.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Betsy: We could line up a thousand women who would all say similar things you and I have said here; it wouldn't matter. When hubby and I were dating, we went dutch- when we were living together and he was still a student I made more so I paid for more, I still make more and pay for more, his student loans are three times what mine are yet we combine incomes and pay- a gift from my husband comes from the joint account, so it is truly a "thought that counts" kind of thing... it doesn't matter here. It upsets the apple cart of anger (as outlined by Hannah's husband in his letter) to hear that most feminists (I've read about /know) pay their own way and don't cotton to "Ladies Night" and all that jazz. It's easier to patronizingly "chuckle" and pretend that it isn't true of anything more than some fringe group.
As for the actual letter. Well yowza. I guess if he considers himself the Jew and his wife the Nazi, then I can't understand his desire to coexist at all- it's his way- absolute "repentance" or continual anger. I'm glad to read about his obvious love for his wife, but it's as if he loves in spite of his hate, and that can't be easy to live with. I pity them both.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Oh, and now here comes Mellisa L. to claim credit for the traffic on this blog segment.
How in the world did we know that was going to happen?
Now we will hear from a parade of her faithful cohorts.
Is it possible for her to admit that she is little more than a hate-monger who can never admit that men have a legitimate beef?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Betsy,
You are part of the normal, vast majority of women.
But do you recognize how your gender is being exploited as the necessary victim group (along with children who the court staples to you in a perfect looking mother/child victim doublet), so that the family courts of this country "portect you" while they loot your family and sell males into slavery?
Until the normal, nice, honorable majority of women in America recognize how the courts and legislators are USING YOUR GENDER AS A STAGE PROP, you will not be able to focus your votes and dump individual legislators who have enabled your exploitation.
Women are a big part of the problem in this regard, but not because the majority of women have bad intentions, as surely they do not, but BECAUSE women have not recognized how their gender is being used in a dirty, nasty scheme to wipe out families for profit in America.
Until women recognize this and push back against government, they are part of the problem for their passivity and lack of diligent use of their votes to protect families.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
From the OMD: "Thats great Betsy and I applaud your modern notions. You are a member of the .000000000001 that does"
Hmmm.... then I know only a very select portion of the population. Or perhaps you are meeting women in the wrong places? There are a lot of reasonable women out there.
As another point, I may misunderstand the concept of Ladies' Night (having no real experience here), but I thought it was often more of a supply-and-demand type of business decision, and not really a chivalry thing. I thought it was about attracting a lot of women to your business when your business needs more women there in order to attract male customers. Sorry if I've gotten it wrong. Is the objection that you couldn't have Men's Night? It think you probably could, if it made sense in your supply-and-demand equation.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
TOMD, that would be one in trillion, and there aren't that many women in the Universe :)
January 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
In fact, there are only about 150,000,000 million women in the US. So I personally constitute like 0.00000007 of them. If you add in the honorable women I've personally been friends with over the years, I'd say you'd get to at least 0.0000003.
:)
January 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Oops, that's 150 million or 150,000,000. I'm doing my calculations too quickly...
January 7th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yes Melissa I chuckled because I surveyed 1000 women and they actually told the truth I would be correct. I was raised as the only male in a household of 7 women from puberty to menopause. Im proud of you for standing by your husband and paying your own way and helping him out with his loans. I applaud your actions but my comments were based on the FACT, not fiction, FACT that a great majority of women still believe its a MANs responsibility to pay for everything on a date.
I was commenting on the fact that its an outmoded way of thinking in the modern society. I support my spouse 110% in all her endeavours but I will call a spade a spade when I see it. Women expect men to be old fashioned when it suits thier needs but when it doesnt we are being misogynist. We are being misogynist because some of us see thru the falsehoods that some (not all) women use to garner sympathy in order to exact revenge for men not towing the line and bowing to thier wishes. We are being misogynist when we speak out as an individual against what we see as an another attempt to further the idea that ALL men either are or have the potential to be rapists, abusers, batterers or sexual deviants.
A recent blog of Glenns is a perfect example. The Texas frozen embryo case. The whole basis of the womens case was essentially "He promised me and no matter what im ENTITLED to those". You are entitled to nothing. You get what you earn. A tenet which many feminists like yourself have forgotten.
So save your outrage and your snide comments for your synchophants. After the way you flamed Glenn on that trash you call a website you and any coments you chose to make have absolutely no credibility and I like may others placed you in the same category as Amanda Marcotte......Both of you hate men and anything which benefits them and are out to make life as miserable as you possibly can.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You are correct Betsy. I was in a hurry and got the math wrong.
**chuckles**
See Melissa L she didnt need your help. She saw the humor in the repsonse.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I like Paul, but similar to Glenn, he is convinced that the goal is to push feminism to it's literal level: equality. Modern man hating feminism evolved because of their need to demonize men to protect chivalrous entitlements and protections for women. Unless he's posturing to get women to reject feminist equality by taking them literally, he's going to get very angry and frustrated.
And what if we call their bluff? Do we really want to see women forced into combat and die by the thousands? Or millions of children raised in poverty if we eliminate women-friendly welfare and child-support policies? The old traditionalist standards that Glenn claims women had "legitimate grivances" with actually performed better for women and their children than today. I remember working class children walking home from school without fear of gang bangers from unwed mother families shooting at them. Quite simply, sexist men such as myself who want to turn back the clock are doing women a favor just as Al Gore thinks we should use less energy to save the planet. I'm a conservative in the truest sense of the word.
Having established my credentials as anti-feminist and certainly no apologist for them, I have to comment about ladies' night: If a man goes to ladies' night and buys women drinks, he is an idiot plain and simple. Most of these women are going out to not meet men but rather to get drunk cheap with their friends. There is no requirement the women even be attractive. Most of these women are smokers and losers. When I was on the market, I knew that the best place to go was a high end hotel bar at happy hour. They would literally be crawling with hot, horny women.
Paul and his wife, Hannah, have to first ask the question (which I don't think they've answered yet): Are women capable of equality? Do they want to earn it or only if it's given free to them? If the answer to both questions is no, then his wife's pipe dreams of equality is a waste of time and just a goodie-grab for women.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Correction to earlier post should hvae read "If I surveyed a 1000 women and if they actually told the truth" sorry for the typo
January 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Ok Ms. Barton. Thank you for attempting to invalidate this issue via your "matronizingly" pithy commentary.
Radical feminism & a paternal legal system have allowed many women to return to their amoral promiscuous nature- back to the days before the “Patriarchy” imposed their “Judeo-Christian” morals upon the female worshippers of every tree & stone. Now they regret their behavior and project the source of such misbehavior on to men. Males being “over-empowered" with respect to (WRT) sex. Spare me. WRT sex, power & the female, it is all about the culture of “ME.” In childhood, adolescence, dating, marriage, and divorce, women are the ones being pleased -- not the ones doing the pleasing. Thanks to chivalrous “secular progressive” male politicians & judges, today’s women children live “responsibility optional” lives. Women have the majority of civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Result? Through the Roe v. Wade decision, they have the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood via sex w/o consequences. Women routinely employ abortion as de facto birth control that results in 25 % (1.4M) of all children conceived yearly being aborted for pure convenience- 40 million thus far. Moreover, in recent poll 30% of women were willing to commit maternity fraud (lying about her fertility or use of birth control) depending on the prospective father’s income. Fifty pecent (50%) of all women commit adultery which results in at least 10% of women committing the most despicable act of domestic abuse: paternity fraud (lying about her child’s real father) w/ impunity. Thanks to the rape-shield laws women lie about rape 50% of the time. Ask the Duke University three (3) about male empowerment and institutionalized misandry on most college campuses. Contrary to the implicit sexism of the $20B “Violence Against Women Act” women commit 50 % of domestic violence. Women routinely lie about spousal abuse and assault their husbands.
Despite all the not so apparent benefits FEMINISM (i.e., Gender Marxism) has brought to contemporary American society, American MEN continue to do all the heavy lifting (90% of overtime, 95% of all work related deaths, etc.), pay the majority of income taxes. Top 50% of wager earners (Majority: MEN!!) pay 96% of all income taxes that support a welfare state that benefits women. Despite that fact that only 60% of American women work outside the home, they control 80% of all family income. They comprise 54% of the electorate. Thanks to affirmative action/quotas, Female-only technical scholarships, (e.g. Intel), Title IX, women graduate college 33% more frequently than men. Yet they still dominate the “fun”, soft-science, mental masturb*tion degrees: english, sociology, psychology, anthropology, women’s studies, education, etc. which will guarantee that they will have trouble supporting a family & spouse, much less themselves. Why? When given the opportunity most women still don’t apply to the lucrative “analytically-challenging” majors, e.g., Engineering. Most women still enjoy the non-lucrative “fun” majors because they figure that some dumb male will eventually support them financially. The big lie that is easier being housewife than actually earning living in a traditional male profession. Additionally, American women bring about 70% of divorce actions, have children out of wedlock at least 37% of the time, and are invariably “entitled” to child custody, child support, and alimony. Their near monopoly WRT child custody results in women committing 70% of all child abuse.
Now society is electing female politicians (e.g., Hillary Clinton) who are in the process of accelerating the male to female transfer of income & opportunity. It doesn’t sound like men are the “empowered” gender in the grand scheme of things.
Thank you for being part of the problem...
January 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Betsy said: :I may misunderstand the concept of Ladies' Night (having no real experience here), but I thought it was often more of a supply-and-demand type of business decision, and not really a chivalry thing. I thought it was about attracting a lot of women to your business when your business needs more women there in order to attract male customers. Sorry if I've gotten it wrong. Is the objection that you couldn't have Men's Night? It think you probably could, if it made sense in your supply-and-demand equation."
Betsy, we have sued car washes, shooting ranges, hotels, casinos, car shows, and even a hamburger stand, for giving higher prices to men, and one or two of the hotels completely excluded men altogether. We are aware of a lawsuit against Club Med for letting women but not men fly free to the resort. To us, it doesn't matter whether the night clubs do it to draw more women and then bring more men. In fact, to us, all of these are analogous to the discrimination against women in salons and dry cleaners. Salons and dry cleaners, in the past, often had explicitly higher prices for women than men *regardless* of the length of their hair or the garmet being cleaned. As a result, feminists passed the 'Gender Tax Repeal Act' in California. Surprisingly they made it gender-neutral. They simply never thought that alot of businesses do the same to men, like the ones I mentioned above.
Salons and dry cleaners were *not* doing this for the purposes of *excluding* women, obviously. They did it because women were willing to pay more. Period. That's the same reason car washes, night clubs, etc. give women discounts. Even if it is *also* to draw men, that doesn't make it any less discriminatory. And of course there are many men who go to bars not to meet women but to have some drinks with a friend. It's offensive and sexist that they should have to pay more for having a penis.
And if we started ignoring the issue because of the motives of the business, then where does the line draw? Businesses can easily say they give women lower prices to draw men, and there would be no end to it. If that motive is ok, then why not others? Eventually we'll see higher prices for men in restaurants, taxi cabs, airfare, public transportation. Heck, why not even taxes? Harvard economist Alberto Alesina wants to charge higher taxes for men, like they tried in Sweden. Why not? As long as there's a "good" motive, right?
I'm not assuming you oppose this, etsy, I just wanted to point this out in response to your comment. We have sued HUNDREDS of these places and took one case to the California Supreme Court and won. As long as these places keep discriminating we'll keep suing no matter what other people think.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Melissa,
I have NO interest in your pitty or your opinion. Go back the the very little world of entitlement and lies that you came from.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Demosthenes: I'm sorry that you do not like my writing style and find it "matronizing". I would like to respectfully ask you to keep personal insults to yourself.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Other Mike: so you haven't surveyed them? Didn't think so, and you prove my point by saying "and IF they told the Truth!" It's not worth arguing about, you've made that decision, that all women are like that. Fine, I assert my belief that it isn't true.
And I LOVE how you can tell me this:
"Im proud of you for standing by your husband and paying your own way and helping him out with his loans. I applaud your actions"
AND THIS:
"......Both of you hate men and anything which benefits them and are out to make life as miserable as you possibly can."
In the SAME POST! That is some fancy bending and shifting there! I'd be really really funny if you meant it to be. But you don't, you want to see a "man hater" and you do. Sad. No one here will say a thing about the hypocrisy of your statement though, because it doesn't feed the anger machine like "YOU HATE MEN!" does
Kevin said: Is it possible for her to admit that she is little more than a hate-monger who can never admit that men have a legitimate beef?
Grow. Up. I'm not going to waste my time gathering up all the post-links where I've agreed with people on this site. It's as tiring as reading all the "WOMEN ARE ALL ENTITLED BECAUSE FEMINISM IS LIKE NAZIS" stuff.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Marc A: Sorry to get off track here, and I am not trying to pick a fight... just to understand. I can think of lots of examples where people are charged different amounts for the exact same services. Do you think it should be illegal for airlines to charge different fares for the same service on different days? Or to try to target business travelers with higher prices? Is your primary objection that the businesses you have sued use gender? Do you disagree with charging different amounts for insurance to people with different ages, backgrounds, genders, and/or habits? Thanks.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
@ Paul: That's fine. I feel it anyway.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
PolishKnight
The answer to one of your questions is yes,absolutely. As a veteran I would have no issue with women in combat. If you ever served in the military there is a great "double standard" that excepts women from MANY of the risks that men face while serving thier country. I am not taking ANYTHING away from the services and accomplishments of female soldiers. But I have seen myself countless times that double standard applied and used to the extreme by a woman to either get out of doign something she did not want to do or to be allowed to do something not generally authorized.
To give an example, In 1990 when I was at Ft Hood I was assisgned to the 1st Cavalry. When we were alerted that we were going to be deployed to protect Saudi Arabia with the eventual task of reatking Kuwait the pregnancy rate for the post almost tripled. There were a number of women who used that as a "get out of jail" free card because the Army will not deploy a pregnant women. There is also NO punishment for doing it. If a women gets pregnant to avoid being deployed nothing happens to her but if a man tries anything to keep from getting deployed hes labeled a coward or a deserter and will be kicked out or imprisoned.
I agree that you cannot tell a woman she cannot get pregnant but if you come up pregnant right before your unit is supposed to deploy that takes away someone who is trained to a job who must be replaced by someone else from another unit or that may be newer and less experienced.
I have absolutely no problem with any women doing the same job as a man for equal pay and benefits.However, that being said, I also believe there should be equal consequences if they fail to do the job. There also should not be double standards for any position. You create a position and set forward a job description that is attainable by both sexes and then the job is competitive.
Thats a perfect world however and we all kow that it doesnt work that way.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Oh, and now here comes Mellisa L. to claim credit for the traffic on this blog segment.
How in the world did we know that was going to happen?
@Mellisa
Hey you forgot that part. I think you should address the real issue you continually show up on topics like this, in order to throw in a couple of meaningless posts, and then run back to your hate-blog to take credit for the traffic.
Take Paul’s advice.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Kevin: You can't even spell my name- it's RIGHT THERE in bold, so I can't be surprised that you fail to read the content of my posts. After what's written here, to call my mom's board a hate blog is laughable. Do you even catch that part of it? That what you're saying has no basis in what is posted, right here, at this website???
January 7th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Betsy said: "Sorry to get off track here, and I am not trying to pick a fight... just to understand."
I know that.
Betsy said: "I can think of lots of examples where people are charged different amounts for the exact same services. Do you think it should be illegal for airlines to charge different fares for the same service on different days? Or to try to target business travelers with higher prices? Is your primary objection that the businesses you have sued use gender? Do you disagree with charging different amounts for insurance to people with different ages, backgrounds, genders, and/or habits?"
I am ONLY talking about gender. I have no problem with - and the law does not forbid - discounts to seniors or children, for example, which are stages in life that all people in theory go through (unless they die early), and children and seniors generally aren't working, etc. That's not the same at all as giving discounts to women. That is sexism, just as it is to give discounts to men. The law forbids it, and so it should work both ways. To not enforce it both ways is hypocritical and a sexist double standard.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Melissa,
Never said you didnt love your husband. There is an EXCEPTION to every rule. You can still hate men and love your husband. I was raised as the only male in a house full of female "man haters" and have seen first hand what that kind of damage that sort of behavior can inflict. Thats not hypocrisy but I guess you, better then I, would be able to spot that since it shows up everytime you type on a keyboard.
"Grow. Up. I'm not going to waste my time gathering up all the post-links where I've agreed with people on this site. It's as tiring as reading all the "WOMEN ARE ALL ENTITLED BECAUSE FEMINISM IS LIKE NAZIS" stuff."
This comment would carry a great deal more weight with us "Lost Boys" I think was how you refered to those of us who are regulars here. You showed your true colors so why bother trying to convince us differently? All of your posturing will not change what you wrote in black and white. I have never equated Feminism with Nazism and in fact think its ludicrious to do so.Now go back and get your facts straight before accusing me of something like that again.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Kevin said "[Melissa] you continually show up on topics like this, in order to throw in a couple of meaningless posts, and then run back to your hate-blog to take credit for the traffic."
I don't think that's a fair assessment. Yes, her traffic claims were odd, but other than that I think Melissa is sometimes one of the more reasonable people here. I think with some of the people here a woman cannot win no matter what she does--which is exactly what feminists have done to men.--GS
January 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Glenn,
I think with some of the people here a woman cannot win no matter what she does--which is exactly what feminists have done to men.--GS
I would hazard to guess its not about winning or losing Glenn. What we (and yourself) have seen is a concerted effort to keep our views from being put out in the mainstream. Sites like Melissas, Padagon, Violet Socks, and Jeff Feakes are all moderated so that they can keep anyone who disagrees with them from raining on thier little pity party. They kick and ban ANYONE who does not shower them the praise for thier own twisted sense of reality.
On my own blog I follow your example. I do not disapprove any posted comments even when I do not nessecarily agree with them.
Its not about a woman or a man winning or losing. Its thier inability to admit there may be another side of the story. I think those of us who read MelissaLs' little piece were quite annoyed because up until she showed her true colors in that little article her views were respected and she was answered with a sense of moderation.
You at least maintain an OPEN forum for all sides of an argument.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Sorry Betsy I missed this part: "Do you disagree with charging different amounts for insurance to people with different ages, backgrounds, genders, and/or habits?"
As for age, habits, actions, etc., I have no problem with that. But gender? Yes. It's only considered ok when the discrimination is against the male, no matter what the reason.
A landmark federal case forbids social security from charging women a higher monthly contribution just because they live longer and wind up taking more retirement money. I have no problem with that. But life and health insurance companies can charge men a higher premium because they die younger, and auto insurance companies can charge men more because on average they crash more (they also drive alot more and the studies never factored that).
That would *not* be allowed by race. Blacks die younger, but life and health insurance companies cannot charge them more for that. If it turned out they, or any other race, crashed more often (statistically), that wouldn't allow auto insurance companies to charge that race more based on race alone. But for men, nobody cares, and men just take it. Somehow discrimination against men is repeatedly considered acceptable for reasons that would not make it acceptable in the reverse.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
@Glenn
Glenn I respect your opinion. I don’t agree with some of your views, but I still respect your opinion.
When “feminists” stop calling themselves “feminists” and find a more “gender neutral” name to use, they will have a lot more respect in my eyes.
I know you don’t like “Klan” and “Nazi” analogies, but let me put it to you like this …
I could never have any respect for people who use those names to identify their groups. I don’t care if the “New Nazi” is the epitome of equal rights and justice for everyone; they still have to lose that name.
I feel the same way about “feminism”. That label is soiled beyond usefulness and needs to be discarded. It’s the symbol of oppression to a very significant portion of the population and those oppressed victims should not have to feel shame for associating the word “feminism” with their oppression.
I think the persistent analogies to Nazis, reflected by the victims of this oppression who post here, is evidence enough to support that assertion.
Like it or not, “Feminism” has become a “dirty word” to many exploited and oppressed people around the world.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Paul,
Amen, brother, and thank you for your kind words! To say that I can relate to and agree with your eloquent and heartfelt sentiments would be an understatement. I have been there. Men's righteous anger, directed constructively at both society and our own "blind" women, is the key to our eventual freedom. "Nice guys" have been finishing last for quite some time now ..... You have a great wife, and I think you are now more likely to keep her -- with happiness for both of you. Good luck, and keep fighting! With your wife at your side as your supporter and ally, you can't lose.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I think it should be illegal to call statistically backed prudent business decisions predjudice. That is enforcing stupidity.
Wiki says: "Discriminating between people on the grounds of merit is generally lawful in Western democracies. Discrimination on other grounds, such as skin color or religion, generally is not."
The Free Dictionary says: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"
So, the 'discriminations' in question were using race to determine merit. From a statistical perspective, on only has to perform a mathematical transform that observes other indicators of merit that are not protected. You will still have a policy where blacks get higher life insurance rates, but it wont be because they are black, it will be because their parents died young. And whites with the same characteristic would be rated the same.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Jay R: I respectfully suggest that you read up on the founding fathers: Samuel Adams, Jefferson, John Adams, etc. There was a common theme that I feel was very important. It is that the cause needs to be one which the calm and reasoned man will feel comfortable with. Kevin Merck had a great quote from Jefferson that said this. I wont re-quote it tho.
I recommend to: Use the anger and wrath to motivate herculean effort, but cleave to the civil and reasonable party line.
Look up what the founding fathers said about mere revolutionaries. It is not nice.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
@Stephen M: "It is that the cause needs to be one which the calm and reasoned man will feel comfortable with."
I find this interesting advice from the source of comments about Darwin and evolution on another thread. Are you also a member of the flat earth society? By the way, do you think that the American Revolution would have ever occurred without a considerable amount of anger, constructively expressed? Also by the way, I have read the entire collected writings of Jefferson. Have you? He was no fan of religious intrusion into rationale discussion or politics.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Marc A: "I thought [ladies night] was about attracting a lot of women to your business when your business needs more women there in order to attract male customers.."
That is supposed to be the theory behind it, at least when it first started, but I don't think that's usually the way it works out. I've seen numerous women-only groups of typically 3-5, come in, take advantage of ladies night, then sit at a corner booth all night and mingle with only themselves. Maybe they flirt with or say "hi" to a couple men..so what. Men have long ago started to sense this, and that's probably what makes it okay for them to file lawsuits (along with the fact that it's discrimination).
Of course someone may respond, "Oh..so we should force the ladies to mingle with men?". My answer to that is "no, but why should we give them free drinks if the initial goal is not being met?" The issue is not that the ladies are free not to mingle; the issue is how an establishment is going to conduct business.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Marc A: "I thought [ladies night] was about attracting a lot of women to your business when your business needs more women there in order to attract male customers.."
That is supposed to be the theory behind it, at least when it first started, but I don't think that's usually the way it works out. I've seen numerous women-only groups of typically 3-5, come in, take advantage of ladies night, then sit at a corner booth all night and mingle with only themselves. Maybe they flirt with or say "hi" to a couple men..so what. Men have long ago started to sense this, and that's probably what makes it okay for them to file lawsuits (along with the fact that it's discrimination).
Of course someone may respond, Oh..so we should force the ladies to mingle with men?. My answer to that is "no, but why should we give them free drinks if the initial goal is not being met?" The issue is not that the ladies are free not to mingle; the issue is how an establishment is going to conduct business.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Norman L., I think you're mixing me up with Betsy. It is Betsy, not me, who said: "I thought [ladies night] was about attracting a lot of women to your business when your business needs more women there in order to attract male customers." I was responding to that quote.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Jay R: Ah, no, I am not a member of the flat eath society. My scientific views are pretty classical for an engineer. I don't feel that I have an 'inside track' on anything. I don't get dark matter or gravity any better than the average engineer. I don't know what 'Darwinism' reference you are making. I do use evolution and Darwinism to explain why some things are the way they are, but it's pretty common sense stuff. Yeah, I know that some fraction of religious fundamentalists will be offended by my views, but I clearly don't mind p'ing off a few crackpots. I am wondering if with the 'flat earth' question, you are confusing me with someone else however. I am definately from the school that science is mostly correct but can be wrong. I am in no better position to gage what areas science has hosed up than the next guy, so I leave that to the researchers and theorists. Hmm, I think I pointed out that religions had done a better job of the marriage contract than the US government has. That is not to say that I want religious intrusion into the government. Rather, I like that competing religions can all freely provide their views and have NO power to enforce them. But I do feel that the governnment needs to enforce contracts between citizens. To fail to do so encourages anarchy.
I have not read the entire collection of writings of Jefferson! lol That is a great one, and I would love to have that. So, to hear that you have read them, excellent. And to hear that you feel that the American Revolution proceeded from a great amount of anger constructively channeled, excellent. We are in complete agreement.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Sorry Marc. Far be it from me to place Betsy's words in your mouth..
January 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Stephen M.,
Oops. I did mix you up with another "Stephen." Please ignore the reference to Darwin (Stephen believes Darwin was an admitted crackpot -- thus the flat earth reference).
January 7th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I’m no expert on the Founding Fathers either, but I do enjoy reading about them and cherry picking some good quotes.
I think feminism has tried to discredit the founders in order to bolster their case for patriarchal oppression. It’s true that many of the founders were slave owners, but it’s also true that many were not, and many were against slavery. It’s also true that women were just as oppressive towards slaves as any of the men of that day. Many slaves were nannies and house servants who waited on spoiled white women hand and foot.
Regardless of their obvious shortcomings, they were still responsible for the founding of a nation, and a constitution, which at the time did not include “all men and women” as being created equal, but the language was such, that it left the door open for that to happen, and it eventually did. For feminism to attack the founders who are responsible for the umbrella of freedom, that permits them the very freedom they enjoy now, speaks volumes about their true character.
I think the men’s/fathers’ rights movement needs to learn from the founders. This is one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson that should be the preamble to the fathers’ rights movement.
“This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.”
Thomas Jefferson
January 7th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Kevin: "It’s also true that women were just as oppressive towards slaves as any of the men of that day. Many slaves were nannies and house servants who waited on spoiled white women hand and foot."
Not just that, but women, both black and white, owned slaves in the Caribbean.
Slave Populations of the British Caribbean 1807-1834 by B. W. Higman. The Americas, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Apr., 1986), pp. 515-516, No. 4 (Apr., 1986), pp. 515-516
http://books.google.com/books?id=WEYzPGf3KVcC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=women+owned+slaves&source=web&ots=5hLPDHu6Ch&sig=nv0pOycRexfQumyjuUY8mQCHKBU
Some scholars factored the size of the plantation and found female slaveowners were less likely to release slaves than male slaveowners of the same size plantation.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Kevin Merck said;
"I think the men’s/fathers’ rights movement needs to learn from the founders."
I think men can learn much from early feminists as well, here's a pearl from Susan B. Anthony:
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences."
January 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Kevin: Great quote. Whenever I read some of the founding fathers' works I'm often amazed that such men even walked the earth, considering what we've tolerated for leadership in my lifetime.
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness. -- George Washington
January 7th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
As a whole I think he made very legitimate, coherent, succinct, albeit passionate points. He has been heard by this reader and I understand.
Very nice Paul.
b
January 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Marc A. Says:
“Not just that, but women, both black and white, owned slaves in the Caribbean.”
I hear you Marc.
I think the same is true in 21st century western society. (You know what I mean.)
Slavery never really went away; it just has a new face.
@Barsin
Thanks, and I like that Washington quote too.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I will put it simply... that while a lot of what he says is right... i hope that he reads it again to himself and switches things around a bit as to how he is applying the code he wants to his wife. On another hand, whats with his wife making this a public spectical? I will put it simply... that while a lot of what he says is right... i hope that he reads it again to himself and switches things around a bit as to how he is applying the code he wants to his wife and himself.
On another hand, what’s with his wife making this a public spectacle? If anything might be under his skin he might not know exactly why, is that going public favors the woman, and as such, it was not a fair move, but a way to get popular opinion and other external pressures to help her cause – not a tactic of the meritorious either (even if they belief that their merit cant work alone against zealotry).
Valid or not, this tends to get family men irked, because the strength in the family is that its not integrated with the outside, and that its members are technically a conspiracy against the world (if not then you don’t understand dynasty as the only real game in town). That in the family values are transmitted, and such, the values that cause men to rescind their agreement with the state. That create people willing to die for whats good, and since state control of man is bad, families can create people who by their VALUES choose to take up action together bound by that alone.
If she posted with his blessings then I am wrong in my point, and willing to say so. But if not, then she was being manipulative, while at the same time being disarming as a way to feel that what was being done was somehow fair. Desperate at best, ingenious more likely.
Let me make a post that may sound like psychology, but its really common horse sense.
Husband, you are not honoring your wife. Wife, you are not honoring your husband.
Neither of you are making your home your safe place. If she sees your point, then she is in the safe space, and if she isn’t acting on you in that way OTHER THAN HER NATURE, then you’re in your safe space.
Your lives and relationship is whatever you define it as, and make it (comparative advantage insures that if your smart). You can’t change the past actions, which is why your take while perhaps argumentatively valid, is toxic. We ALL have to get over the past of our others… We all have to figure out if their honest or not, and if we trust them or not. Either you trust your wife’s conversion, or you don’t. If you don’t, then you don’t trust your wife, and that’s toxic, and she senses that. Before you drive her into the arms of a waiting meat grinder, don’t be the bailiff.
As for penance, it’s not for you to ask for it, nor demand it. Penance is not yours, if you’re following where that concept comes from in the west. You’re not the bailiff that collects the fines for past sins. What’s worse is that you want penance and have created the horrible situation where they don’t know what penance for YOU would be constituted of. What’s worse is that if she is really devoted to family, then you’re asking her to divide that devotion to make up for past sins, but then who really pays the current tab? Your wife has her life to make penance; she might not do it while with you. Don’t lose what you have while waiting for the payment of a bill that isn’t yours.
Get past this. This is a waste of your time if she sees what you’re referring to, and gets it. Since I have been pointing things out to my wife, she gets it. She even gets why older movies are more fun to watch and enjoyable. They have no ‘purpose’ other than entertainment, and so they tend not to be reinvented perversions. Waking up to games around you is a process, not everyone gets it, and those who are successful and smart GET IT LESS. They are blinded by the vanity that they are smart enough to see it, but they are also the ones in which the system ‘works’ more for. So they are less likely to question that system till there is some impetus. If they never really examine things, that impetus has to come from outside. It all depends on what education they have had (history vs operative, vs others), and family life, and if their convicted concern steers them to really examine cause and effect, and who was causing what (rather than reading what others have to say in news that’s long on opinion and angle, and short on fact – and now short on literacy too. Not that I am an English major).
If everyone here sided with your wife, that would not make her right. if everyone sided with you, that would not make you right. You two can very well paint yourself in a logical corner that life does not demand that logic apply. You can literally get to a logical impasse if you refuse to see that while it’s a great tool, its not the only way to get through something. You can decide NOT to. You can step outside the logic and make a meta choice.
If you two want to work together making a bit of difference then fine… if you want to rant and be understood… that’s fine too. But if your going to take these externalities into your home and connect them to your lives, then your going to get caught up in one of the traps of the private being public. Your going to muddy your marriage with the detritus of ideological battles in the outside world, and the distinction between each will erode. Newspaper articles will be like time bombs as they happen the moods of the family will change.
Whether or not this is right is moot… the outcome will not be good…
Take stock as you have in what you have…. And work from now, not then…
Your wife has to stop trying to get the world to gang up on you by airing things in public (if she did that without your permission and such first, or you doing so without hers), and you have to try to judge things as if you’re the arbiter rather than judging what’s right for you. Obviously your wife is right for you, so don’t make it wrong by damning her for past since and failed penance before you.
kick the politics out of your home life…
And most of all… have a wonderful life..
January 7th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 2:04 am ....
Just a general response to this post before I continue my most excellent read....
There are more than a few of us on here that are quite aware of the economic incentives of which you speak. However, calling feminism a "strawman" in this scenario pretty much led me to conclude that YOU are a dyed in the wool feminist...because this is exactly the argument they make....men's oppression is a class issue, not a gender issue. This is flat out bupkiss, and for one who claims to see reality, you give precious little shrift to everything from justification to impetus to any other motivation to target a specific group. BIG blind spot there I'm afraid, which weakens your argument considerably. Yes, there's lots of money to be made off oppressing men, and to be truthful if the powers that be hadn't gotten carried away with greed, I'm sure they could've kept it going indefinitely - but the money feeds a bureaucracy that largely didn't exist prior to feminism. I would class it as more of a feedback loop initiated by feminism myself.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
# ed Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I just want to comment quickly on the Nazi argument. I think the reason people throw that out there so repetetively and predictably is because it may be the last and most memorable thing we, as a society, agreed was evil. It was a political party, not a race or "culture" so it is acceptable from both wings to demonize and "discriminate" against. It is as close to a common viewpoint of evil as we have. How effective would it be to argue using satan and demons with an atheist? Arguing the evils of communism has no effect anymore because of how many cheerleaders it has in the modern world. I think it is overused as an example because people have no other example to use to describe evil.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Actually, I would disagree. I definitely use the comparison deliberately, since both the message they give "reparations" "for the good of the children" etc. and desired outcomes (in extreme feminist cases) are quite literally identical. Yes, this does include death camps by the way.
This is where you are supposed to giggle and call me a nutjob, and on many levels I agree... Except.....
It's happened before, with decent people allowing it to happen, and less decent people encouraging it to happen. It started with politics, and ended in genocide. This is a very clear indication that this sort of behaviour is possible, follow me a bit longer before you write this off....I'm no historian, so I get a lot of details wrong, I know, but the general trend still remains.
The NAZI party was a LEFT wing party...a Socialist party....said so right there in the name in fact.
I'll let a smarter man than me point out some facts for you all, Vox Day:
"Consider 13 of the most relevant points from the Nazi Party's 25-point program of 1920, its Munich manifesto:
7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State.
10. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.
11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. Breaking of the thraldom of interest.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been amalgamated.
14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.
15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest.
20. The schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State. We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation ...
23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a German national press…. It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare.
24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it. The Party ... does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession.
25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Reich and its organizations in general;
These supposedly right-wing extremists were calling for national health care, social security, state-run schools, communal land development and centralized government control. They were determined advocates of gun control. And if they did not believe it took a village to raise a child, they were certainly enthusiastic about public youth programs. And then there were the complaints about vast conspiracies in the private press. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34148
(actually, the article is an anti-Hillary piece, but the point is made...)
So yes...I have a very real concern for the level of misandry in our society, the disposability and mistreatment of men, and the fact that it's getting worse, not better. I have every reason to make these connections...they exist, they're factual, and no matter how outlandish it might seem, we have incontrovertible proof that it did ALREADY. I'll let the true historians fill you all in on how frequently, and by what type of government, and under what conditions. I truly think the only disconnect is that men are going to be needed, you can't "get rid of them all" like you can an ethnic group, which prevents any further progression. The problem here is neither intent, nor methodology. The problem is lack of focus....that's it. Solve that, you can go ahead and commence killing. I'm looking into the reasons the NAZI's could get away with what they did...so far, social pressure, misinformation, and intimidation are repeated themes. Feminists demonstrably engage in social pressure, as well as misinformation....the intimidation is too subtle to be of maximum effect I would suppose.
Listen, I know this sounds like irrational fear....I don't live in terror of this everyday or anything, but there are parallels...lots of them, enough to warrant a little open minded investigation. I'm just sayin'.....
January 8th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I think his wife is worried that the goose that lays the golden eggs may fly the coup which is why she is suddenly all fired up about Men's Rights.
And this guy is well on his way to getting a divorce. My first instinct is to say more power to him, but I know as well as most of you that he will get screwed in the process.
Having a feminist say she didn't know things were so bad for men is like a German who lived next to Auschwitz say, "I never knew they were killing and cremating thousands of Jews just down the street."
Ya right. Well U.S. soldiers made those townspeople bury the bodies right in the middle of town and now it's the feminists turn to be accountable.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:13 am
One thing that clearly comes out in all of this discussion is we really don't have a national Father's Movement or even Equal Parenting movement yet. We do, however, have 50,000 movements going in 50,000 directions with about 50,000 total members hence we are a movement of individuals moving in individual directions. Feminists and other movements mentioned in this thread do have real organizations which explains their higher levels of effectiveness.
We don't need to advocate against women per se but we will need to form a national group complete with infrastructure, political agendas (I suggest we go after judges), and a coherent message. Until we do these things we will be limited to website blogging.......
January 8th, 2008 at 1:19 am
"awareness"
January 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am
"Yes, I do.--GS"
Thanks. I had thought so.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:03 am
I noticed that comments were made about how gender based chargers were seen to be women's fault. You do realize that it is usually MEN BUSINESS OWNERS who BOTH come up the ideas and implement them. So if you are mad that your insurance company charges you for being male or the clubs who charge you more, my sympathy, but you should BLAME and ADDRESS the blading old guy trying to make a dollar off you not the women who had nothing to do with it. Also remember it's your dollar they are after, if you go to the bars that attract the women who go because they can get in free...the club owner will continue to have "ladies night". YOUR dollar votes, esspecially to businesses.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:35 am
One of the reasons I am so troubled by the false miscasting of the core problems facing our families in America as the consequence of some female vs. male class struggle, is that it works against a successful unification of Male+Female votes against the true villians which are the greed-driven participants in the divorce industry.
The reality is that every-day men and every-day women who are not members of any groups whatsoever, and who comprise the vast majority of voters in this country, are having their families, their futures, their marital prospects, their reproductive prospects, their economic prospects, and their parenting prospects put at severe risk and/or destroyed and looted, and ruined.
(The ruination scenario for "protected" women is different than it is for men and plays out over a longer time horizon, but it is just as disasterous, believe it or not, for the female with custody and slave-money coming in, who because of all of this becomes an "untouchable" in the eyes of any desirable men. So she who "wins" actually loses over a longer horizon as she becomes isolated and the slave payments finally end. And all viable men avoid her due to the stench of burnt male economic flesh surrounding her -- flesh burnt not by her so much as by the family court. So her prospects for anything more than the deal from the court, are effectively wiped out by that same court. Think about it. It's true.)
But here is my point: to right all of these wrongs, we need to break the grip of the forces holding the wrongs in place. The forces holding them in place right now are greed-driven forces embodied in money-sucking professionals and money-seeking state governments. The American popular vote is for shared parenting, 50/50, and no parent making profit in divorce. That means that the majority of women see this as a right and proper path. (See results of a the oft-cited voter referendum in supposedly feminist-dominated Massachusetts of all places.)
By setting up a female vs. male conflict scenario, when in fact the vast majority of voting females don't disagree with the solutions which males seek, enables legislators to defend the pigs who are bankrolling them (lawyers) by running back and hiding behind the "we must protect women's rights" defense. Well if the women who vote in a referendum clearly don't want that kind of protection, why should bloggers and editors here help drive the divisive wedge deeper in such a way as to divide what is actually an already emerged and unified Male+Female voter block?
It is not rational. It is not responsible. And it is not helpful to our children, which is what angers me the most about this feminist vs. MRA side-show. It doesn't matter. Nobody in America listens to feminists, and nobody even knows what an MRA is. That is the reality about American awareness of this absurdistan-style of side-show conflict.
But, the majority of Americans, female and male, do know that lawyers are the least trusted profession in this country, the majority do each know at least one horror story about someone being eaten alive by "their" own lawyer. And the majority don't trust our courts.
Ergo, we have a ready majority whose awareness, insight, humanity and votes can be brought to bear at a legislative level to kill the family court serpent by crushing its money-sucking head through legislative action.
Allowing this absurd distraction of women vs. men to go on as if it is the central theme, or even an actual conflict, is a disgrace to all who have suffered too much at the hands of the American family court slave trade and family looting and destruction apparatus.
A final note to Glenn: If you read the classic technology marketing text called "Crossing the Chasm", you might find youself taking the view that many you have served with this blog and your efforts fall merely into the "pioneer" and "early adopter" segments per the new-product (or new-idea) adoption model set forth in that book.
But the big opportunity for you Glenn, is to recognize the nature and needs of the much more vast market segments which come after, but are in fact quite different from, the pioneers and early adopters. My thesis to you is that you will need to shed this feminist vs. MRA sideshow if you want to dramatically grow your website into what is really needed -- that is an editorial vehicle which unifies the genders against a family murdering and plundering court system which has taken hold in America.
This is your big web-business opportunity in my opinion. Not running esoteric dialogues among mutitudinous sub-species of feminists and MRAs, which is frankly, in the eyes of many, just an age-old, unsolveable, adolescent type of debate which most people stop wasting time on in their college days. Go after the larger market of already murdered and/or endangered families and singles who may now never have families Glenn. It needs a messenger and a responsible editorial unifier right now. You are well positioned to meet this need right now.
Best,
AP
January 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Paul Says:
Of all people Glenn, I would expect you to know that without action, words are valueless.
-----------------------------------
I don’t always agree with Glenn either, but I think THIS is exactly the point he’s trying to make with the comment “men, as a whole, have not done much to defend themselves”. And I agree with him. I’ve found that men and women actually do support men’s issues to a large extent. For the time being, considering that if someone attacks you, the onus is on you to defend yourself; my comments are directed at men.
Too many men are cowards when it comes to speaking out on a lot of the nonsense modern feminism spew. They cower in the face of reality and choose not to voice their concerns. Secondly, the “me” culture that we live in. If something doesn’t directly affect you, who give a damn, right? Too many men just don’t care … that is, until they have the misfortune of ending up in family court or being falsely accused of DV or rape.
As is typical with divorcing men, many of them didn’t even see it coming. When a slightly more enlightened man (or women for that matter because God knows I’ve done my share of talking to men until my throat is sore) try to urge other men to safeguard themselves against all sorts of female swindle, a lot of them go around with their chests inflated: “I’m happily married/engaged and my wife / girlfriend is a good woman, she will never try to screw me over in court.”
You know what, I think the majority of women are good women. I’m good a woman and an even better wife and mother. My husband will gladly attest to that. However, the current system has a way of turning completely honest, rational people into avaricious, vengeful MONSTERS, especially if you’re not at mercy to your conscience. The system does nothing to discourage this behavior. Indeed, it appeals to it, telling you, you can get more, you DESERVE more even when you don’t. An unscrupulous woman encountering such a reception in family court is going to take advantage of it. Therefore, this loophole should not have existed in the first place.
Men, from their end, should have seen that this would happen and put a stop to it immediately from way way back in the 70s. Men, even in their support of women having access to more opportunities, still could have been a voice of reason, and not just taking everything that’s shoved down one’s throat. As good ole Melissa once said, MEN have the responsibility of looking out for their own interests. I agree with her. Believing women will see to your interests over their own is just careless and naïve. As much as we’d like to believe in the good of mankind, this is not the case. People are selfish, and it’s not beyond many to hurt others to get where they want to go.
That being said, decent women who truly desire equality and not just the good aspects of what that equality entails should have put a stop to it as well. They didn’t and continue not do to so. THAT has always been my biggest problem with the modern feminist movement. If equality was the name of their game as they say it is, Clara Harris and Mary Winkler wouldn’t have been paraded on TV like national heroines. Crystal Magnum would have been chastised publicly and jailed, or if she’s mad as they say she is, committed to an asylum. It’s vastly unfair that she’s running around living her life free of stigma (more so than the accused at least) while these young boys’ will forever be touched by her lies. Her behavior is also an insult to other young women who have been raped. On this particular point, I definitely agree with Paul.
Women should step up to the plate and recognize that equality is not a gender issue, it’s not a race issue, it’s not a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue. While Paul’s letter comes across a bit too combative in tone, my impression is, that’s his point. And he’d be right.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Kevin Merck Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I think he needs to place more of the blame, for everything he is talking about, where it truly belongs … squarely on the shoulders of men.
No one ever got anywhere blaming all their problems on someone else. Men need to accept responsibility for their situation and do something about it.
Don’t wait for the other guy to do it … “Just do it”.
Men are mostly “responsible” for this problem. If that makes me guilty of blaming the victim, then I’m guilty, guilty, guilty!
------------------------------------------------
Kevin, what’s really funny about you sparring with Melissa is that I think you’re both very much alike. You clearly are very intelligent people who have a lot to bring to the table if only you could drop your haughty, condescending, elitist tone of discussion.
But on to way I picked out your post. You make an excellent point. That’s exactly what I was trying to point out in my response to Paul’s statement.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I was lucky enough to have a husband who did not blame me, but even so it was a very hard road.
Paul, what you are not seeing is Hannah also has a lot to deal with. It is terribly disconcerting, frustrating, and disappointing to realize everything you believed in and fought for is a lie. You want her to be there for you and your cause, but you have been thus far oblivious to how crushing this path may have been for Hannah. We wives not only learn a whole new truth, and what it means for those we care about (especially our sons) but also feel the guilt of having supported one of the main causes of the problems, as well as feel completely duped by something we trusted in. It took me many months to come to terms with all this. The simple change from victim to perpetrator is harsh enough, and as a woman Hannah will indeed come under fire as a perp from some in this movement. She will have to listen to conversations which say "women are shallow" or "women are manipulative" and have to just accept that even though it was written as all women, it did not mean her personally. She will have to understand that while all the MRAs will cheer her when she is towing the line, the moment she has her own thought outside that line there are many (men and women alike) who will take great delight in attacking her. I have seen this happen to male feminists as well, so it is not a victim ploy, it is just what happens when one gender tries to support the opposite.
Also, you have, really, no right to demand she become an active MRA. This is your cause. If she joins you, that is phenominal, as I can attest that becoming active together is a great way to strengthen a marriage. However, you can only ask she join you. It is her right to not join. I would say the same if she got into a cause and expected you to join in whole heartedly.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am
The whole debate over whether feminism gave rise to the current Family Court's tyranny or whether the Family Courts sustain and perpetuate insitutionalized feminism may be an unresolvable "chicken-and-egg" conundrum.
I applaud AP's argument focusing on the underlying economic rationale of the Gender Wars, as I believe FEMINISM, INC. has been much underappreciated as a successful business model -- with its family destruction department being just one lucrative franchise in the greater network of racketeering and predation.
I would broaden AP's analysis to include the macro-economic sphere beyond the localized destruction of the Family Courts, to include earnest consideration of the impacts of globalization on the American family and gender relations.
What has happened to African-American males during the past 50 years vis a vis their economic marginalization and social criminalization is now progressively happening to all categories of American men, with full color-blind equality.
I suspect that it will not be the Family Courts that will complete the destruction of the American family; rather it will be the devastating effects of NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. and the outsourcing of jobs that once made marriage a reasonable economic premise between women and men.
On the other hand, if you consider that today it takes two full-time wage earners to sustain an average so-called middle-class household -- and even that is slipping away in the face of globalized inflation --
I'd put my bets on a renewed interest in polygamy!
(David R. Usher's controversial "pro-marriage movement" -- take note!)
January 8th, 2008 at 11:33 am
@TheBiscuitQueen
I do understand that she has been duped. But one cannot relieve themselves of all accountability because they were too ignorant and naive to have fully looked into what they so blindly supported. That support has rendered me and all men including my son a slave to female oppression and entitlement. Perhaps you should have thought prior to purchasing that t-shirt. What if I blindly supported a cause that encouraged the battering women? All the while promoting entitlement for myself? And due to my blind support of that cause you were beaten by many many men? And you still are beaten by them. But its all good. I said "I didn't know."
No, she does not have to become an MRA. But, if she desires to see herself relieved of her responsibility and accountability of what she has done, she must make amends for her actions. Ya know, like serving time in jail for committing a crime? Does this concept ring true anywhere in your head?
What you state is the exact path that all America is going down. No one is responsible for accountable for their actions. They are simply relieved of the responsibilities for their actions. Well, this does not ring true for me. I also hold you accountable for the slavery that you have sent your son into.
I am not getting into a "cause" as you so ingnoratly put it. I am trying to undo the damage that she has done. Again, yet another example of female entitlement. Women get to cause the problem, men get to fix it. Right TheBiscuitQueen?
January 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
@Davina
I will take your approach of blaming men and use that else where.
All women who have been raped deserve it. Had they not dressed so slutty and sexy they would would not have been raped. Set all rapists free, these women are at fault for their own rape. They deserve what they got.
Start covering up like they do in the middle east!
January 8th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Paul said: No, she does not have to become an MRA. But, if she desires to see herself relieved of her responsibility and accountability of what she has done, she must make amends for her actions. Ya know, like serving time in jail for committing a crime? Does this concept ring true anywhere in your head?
Really? Jail time for your wife? Because of a political view?
WHAT exactly would make you happy in this regard? Servitude to you and your beliefs?
January 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
@artfldgr and a few others
In Hannah's defense. My wife did not post. She is not agenda drive nor worried that she will loose her goose with the golden egg. She cares. Plain and simple. She wrote to Glenn in an email not a blog post. In her email she simply asked for help in dealing with me and my anger at having supported feminism. Glenn, asked Hannah if he could post it. Hannah did not go public to hurt me. She simply wanted insight and guidance. I credit her for looking for help. She does sincerely feel bad for being a one time feminist and is working hard with me to undo what feminism has done. I also work hard with her to guarantee that she and my future daughter are not considered second class citizens.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
To all,
I must inject a little reality therapy to these comments about "men" and "women" and what they were doing or not doing when this or that happened.
The fact is that all women and all men in the U.S. have spent most of their lives being very, very busy living their lives and not having anything whatsoever to do with these extreme issues or the tiny groups attached to them. This is what Americans do. They live their lives.
They don't sit around saying: "oh, I am a man, so I am responsible for the aggregate behavior of all males in each and every sub-group of males, and today I have to do something about their aggregate inaction on men's rights (whatever that is) and its results for society."
That is nonsense.
What has happened to America and its families is something very serious and very deadly, and no individual group members are to blame for it per se, but virtualy ALL citizens, male and female, can and must be enlisted in solving the problem.
But we are all to blame for it if we dilute our energies in silly, irrelevant dredging of non-actionable theses on how this all came to be. It is crystal clear who is being served by not implementing the will of the people in state legislatures, and imposing it on the courts, while shutting down the courts franchise to loot and destroy families and enslave wage earners for obscene amounts unrelated to "child support".
It has evolved into a racket. We need to shut down the racket. That's it and that's all.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
@Melissa
It appears that you need some reading comprehension 101 classes. I did not say Jail time for my wife! She has not committed a CRIME. It was an example of why we put people in jail. To serve a dept to society. Your analogy suggests that if a criminal says, "Im sorry, I didn't know" that we sould set them free.
READ my FRIGGEN POSTS! All your questions I have already answered.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
In response to:
AnonymousPamphleteer Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 4:35 am
@AP
A CBS news poll (for what that’s worth) claims 30% of American women call themselves “feminists” and 82% claim they are better off because of the feminist movement. “In addition, 24 percent of men say the term feminist is an insult,(I take insult as being akin to calling them a Nazi) compared to 17 percent of women who say this. When the definition of a feminist is provided, however, 58 percent of men say they are a feminist.”
I don’t think we should take those numbers lightly. I think you underestimate the power those 30% of women calling themselves feminists have in the legal profession and politics. I think you completely overlook the 58% of men who call themselves a feminist given a favorable definition. Kowtowing to feminists is practically mandated by the government.
I just want to add that I think a poll like this can be easily engineered to get desired responses from “the man on the street”. It just depends on where you go to ask these questions, and who you target, but I think only a fool would totally discount these findings.
Feminism (not women) is the “enemy” and at least 24% of men, and 17% of women, think feminism has become a “dirty word”.
I agree with the basic premise of most of your statement, but I think you are overlooking the obvious impact feminists have had in society. Saying that “no one listens to feminists” is not true, and part of the problem is, that too many people do.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
(AP) - "It has evolved into a racket. We need to shut down the racket. That's it and that's all."
Problem is, you can shut down the racket on your corner, with a lot of succes and even a celebratory media blurb or two and an Oprah special....
Then, the racket moves across town and sets up shop again.
Why?
Because the racket is the business and the business is the ideology and the ideology is the racket.
So.
That's not exactly ... "all." Is it?
PS - just for giggles:
Anybody notice how the female posters gravitate towards the angst and drama of the initial interpersonal husband-and-wife dilemma (the local soap opera), and the guys are all into theory and political analysis and power themes and economics and why we should buy any woman a drink?
That's really funny! (Evolutionary Psychology majors -- please comment!)
January 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Paul, I hope the fire you have now will lead you to direct action. You are on a high of discovery, which will make you forget everything else, and will have you seeing misandry in the least likely of places. Just remember that at one time many of us who used to be feminists felt the same way about feminism. The key I have found is moderation. Think of yourself as a steam engine-if you have too much fire you damage your ability to move and burn out, too little you stagnate. Glenn is a prime example of a well stoked engine going the distance. He is a great example of moderation.
In the 70's, 80's and even early 90's we (feminist of the time) did not have the internet to find all this information about our causes, and to look up the statistics at the source which shows how men are not oppressing women. We had to get our information from the sources which were available, which were mostly feminist. Quite frankly, when we looked around us, it seemed the feminists were correct. Men in power, the only abusers we knew were men due to defining abuse in male terms, men making more money, having less problems in the workplace with sexual harrassment, 1 in 4 rape stats, etc. Many ad campaigns used untrue factoids for issues like homelessness, rape, sexual harrassment, and AIDS so that our beliefs were being echoed by mainstream media.
Yes we were duped. Yes, we went hook line and sinker for a partyline which made sense on the outside and could not be easily disproven. It is easy to sit here and say we who at one time supported feminism owe retribution to men, it is another to take responsibility for your own part in all this, as well as to understand that there was little recourse to the average person to research these issues.
That said, I would never hold someone accountable for something they did not know. Once they do know, well, that is another story. If you are so keen on retribution, are you also going to give retribution? You were duped too, you most likely bought products which had negative ad campaigns, you likely voted for people who supported misandric policies, you likely went to movies with groin kicks and did nothing. You were likely at one point like all of us in the men's movement-ignorant of the issues. Your wife is not digging in her heals and refusing to see the truth. She simply does not want to become your flogging post. That is a big difference.
You want retribution and you are angry. I can certainly understand in a way, I was angry too once I came to terms with these issues, especially as a mother of sons. I would advise you, however, to think about your marriage before you start demanding anything. Your wife did not create this mess, millions of people throughout the last century did. Demanding your wife "work off" her complicity in the making of this problem is not going to help the cause, it will not help you, and it definately will not help your marriage. Your wife is not the enemy.
I am speaking as an MRA who has gone through this. Until I started school full time I was more active than my husband, but that was after months spent trying to cope with these changes in my world. I can tell you from expirience that the way you are going you are alienating your wife. That may not matter to you now in this exciting high, but after a few months or a year you are going to realize that you lost her for nothing. Together you can do more than you alone. I would think carefully what price you are willing to pay to be right.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
We really need a few more women, like Paul's wife, to step forward and address the issues that marginalize men in our society. I would think people would wonder if a man can get a fair trial in this day with events such as the Duke LaCrosse sham and the FACT that 90% of women win in custody court with corresponding child support which is only a substitute for alimony of old. The main issue is mothers also have sons and later grandsons who will pay the price for an unnaccountable and runaway judiciary playing to the radical feminists. Today it is PC to go after fathers for everything and give them no quarter but someday people will look back and wonder why nobody stood up when our families were destroyed when it was completely avoidable.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Paul said: she must make amends for her actions. Ya know, like serving time in jail for committing a crime?
LIKE SERVING TIME IN JAIL. So... not jail exactly, but LIKE it. Right. And you haven't stated what you consider proper penance would be. What would make you happy? What would these "amends" be? In her post, your wife was asking quite passionately "what do you think I can do to show my husband that I do see many of the problems men are facing, and that I advocate fair treatment for all people male/female/white/black/all religions, etc?" SHE doesn't know- you have not said.
roy said: Anybody notice how the female posters gravitate towards the angst and drama of the initial interpersonal husband-and-wife dilemma (the local soap opera), and the guys are all into theory and political analysis and power themes and economics and why we should buy any woman a drink?
The thing that confuses me most about this blog is the way the topic of the initial post is often completely ignored in the discussion. IMO, the post isn't special because Paul is a man who has these views- it is a topic of discussion because of the interpersonal relationship between husband and wife.
Hannah said: My problem is that my husband's anger is overwhelming and he refuses to acknowledge that I really can see how men are actively discriminated against.
Paul said: The concept I am expecting is that of paying penance for one's sins. If one has done wrong by someone, they must make efforts to overcome and fix the damage that they have inflicted.
With that as the topic at hand, it's difficult to ignore the emotional aspect and go into the theory of it all.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
BQ - "Women get to cause the problem, men get to fix it. Right?"
Going back a ways .... before Britanny dominated everything:
It is all Eve's fault. She had to pick that apple!
But then again, why was Adam so smitten with that irrepressibly curious and rebellious woman?
His bad.
But wait!
The all-loving God only gave Adam one choice in a wife.
That seems like a diabolical set up to me.... ;-)
(BQ) - "I also hold you accountable for the slavery that you have sent your son into."
So much for the empathetic Earth Mother Goddess myth...
See, even theological heresy is permitted on Glenn's blog!
January 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Roy, you always leave me shaking my head...sort of like Picasso!
I do not think it was women alone who brought us to this state. Eve picked that apple but Adam took a bite. Sounds to me like both had a role. I think it was women wanting things and men wanting to give them things, it was some abuses on both sides, it was about many people doing what seemed easy and not doing what was right, it was following passion rather than logic, it was human greed to want more for less.
Fact is, I believe in Matriarchy about as much as I believe in the Patriarchy.
I think from where I stand now it is really not the best use of time, energy and talent to point fingers. It is the best use of these things to make change.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
This is not original, and I can’t remember where I read it, but it went something like this:
In the aftermath of our broken society, when everyone is wondering how things went so terribly wrong, a woman will speak up to say how terrible it was that women played such a major role in our destruction, and her question will be to the men … “We were so terrible, we were guilty of such unforgivable crimes against humanity, why on earth didn’t you stop us?”
Kevin Merck
January 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
BQ,
Do you shake your head left-to-right, or up-and-down?
That makes a critical difference in how I might respond... ;-)
BTW, if I could paint you like Picasso, you'd first be naked and then really unimpressed with the painting!
Cubism, what an unflattering thing to do to women....
Worth millions, I've heard.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
To Kevin,
Correct on polls. If I ask those two questions in this sequence:
1. Q: "Do you think you have you been helped by the feminist movement?"
A: "Oh yes, I fell I have lots of access to job choices, education choices and I don't feel descriminated against"
2.Q: "Would you consider yourself a feminist?"
A: "Well, I guess so, yes"
By having a question to which the answere must be a head-noding yes as #1, you set up question #2 for a yes.
But again, to all,
Groups bashing the aggregate values of other groups (noting of course that no single member of any group has the the exact average values of the the group, nor are they responsible for, nor can they control the rantings of the most extreme members of their "group"), is complete mental masturbation. And it is a waste of people's time and energies.
What can have a positive return on effort are precision-strike efforts for change. Braking the appropriate links in the chain of causality.
Attacking amorphous philosophies and scattered, amorphous "groups" because one sees them as worthy of anger is silly.
Why not instead attack an identified sucker of familial blood and money -- the family court greed merchants -- who are
1. an identifiable class of licensed professional (actually a couple of classes),
2. subject to direct regulations,
3. subject to a multitude of actual laws, which if enforced against them, would severely hamper their actions, and
4. clearly, and identifiably protecting this racket.
So feminists exist. MRAs exist. What are you going to do about it? Out argue them? It is a waste of time. It is a distraction.
The power vector in all of this is to attack the primary economic links in the money chain.
Trying to fight a "philosophy" which is held to varying degrees in the minds of various disparate people, who don't even agree among themselves on the philosophy, and who are certainly not making a full-time career out of pushing it, is a fools war. (Much more foolish than the foolish game of going into a country like Viet nam and hoping to prevail through limited conventional means against a dispersed enemy not subject to any rules and who use those classic tactics which work so well against large well defined targets like an invading military of foreigners.)
The good news about this ugly problem in America -- if I can call it "good" news -- is that the power has become highly concentrated in the hands of those greed merchants who are destroying families for profit. Slay that beast through legal means, and all of the rest becomes philosophical noise.
Waste your life trying to get your arms around some amorphous group holding an ever changing philosophy, and you will hep keep America's children from their parents for decades to come.
Debates about wheter "women brougt us to this state" or "men deserved feminist backlash" or whatever, are completely, and I repeat COMPLETELY a waste of time.
We need to focus on fixing the problem, not fixing blame. Historical blame does not matter. Contemporary solutions do matter. All should stop dredging for how we got here -- and help get us out of where America is festering right now in the clutches of a sick, greed- and power-crazed family court regime.
Eyes on the prize. It is a lawfully slayed, poisonous and murderous serpent called American family court.
We slay it, we get back our children, and we free America from the worst and most vicious and destructive enemy ever to have arisen from within its borders.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
@Melissa
WOW, you read my post a few times and now understand the CONCEPT I was stating. Congratulations!
But as can be expected from women like you, you misquote me and change the context of what I actually said. To accuratly quote me, I said "Ya know, like serving time in jail for committing a crime?" I did not say as you state "LIKE SERVING TIME IN JAIL."
How interesting that you leave out the most important element of the quote, the context! Notice how I mention "for committing a crime." You leave this out. So jail time is only "LIKE it" when a crime is committed! Please, do not respond unless you can do by accuratly quoting and passing the context of my words!
Like a few other wise posters have stated (ie TheBiscuitQueen, Jeff) this is an issues between my wife and me. What is expected will be resolved between our willingness to work with one another, not a complete starnger such as yourself. I have said, again if you would actually comprehend what I post. And what I have said to her you are not necesserally privy to! Want confusing Melissa you state lack of personal detail of my wife and me yet in the same post you say "he interpersonal relationship between husband and wife." Confusing at best.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
@AP
You seem to be arguing with yourself AP. I don’t see anyone really disagreeing with what you are saying.
You seem to have an “overabundance” of the will to argue and are very short on any plan of action.
I think you understand much of the problem in our courts but are woefully inadequate at illustrating exactly how to deal with it.
Oh wait, I’m sorry, I forgot about emailing a friend, who then emails a friend, who then emails another friend. That’s brilliant AP; I wonder why no one else ever thought of that.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
We can't go to war against women even though many women (NOW and many feminazis to be sure) have gone to war against men. The only answer is to go to war (politically) against the judiciary by throwing out bad judges as we can do that legally and it will make the appropriate statement.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
(AP) – “Groups bashing the aggregate values of other groups…. is complete mental masturbation.”
Well, that pretty much discounts and retires all religions and political ideologies! As well as any conversations about philosophy, ethics, and good manners.
You are all about achieving peace between morons, right? The voluntarily lobotomized? The end of human thought?
What’s left?
“I Love Lucy” re-runs?
(AP) -- “Trying to fight a "philosophy" which is held to varying degrees in the minds of various disparate people, who don't even agree among themselves on the philosophy, and who are certainly not making a full-time career out of pushing it, is a fools war.”
It is called – T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G!
Try it sometime after you have a thoroughly cleansing mental enema….
January 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
@TheBiscuitQueen
I do see your point that information today is much more available that ever in the past. I will take that into account. But, I also believe that anyone willing to label them self is, regardless of availability of information, accountable for due diligence of information prior to taking the label. If not, accept the accountability of your actions. With this in mind I suppose the question is can you or Hannah show such due diligence? If not, it is fair to hold you accountable!
You are correct, I am very much still in the discovery phase and my total anger is not fairly directed at my wife. In time I will come off the emotional high and take more direct action against this oppressor. I state again, Anger Precedes Action.
I am not holding her accountable for not knowing, I am holding her accountable for not finding out. Big difference. What responsible person labels them self without finding out the meaning of that label and the real purpose of its cause? I fool I suppose.
You state that
"If you are so keen on retribution, are you also going to give retribution? You were duped too, you most likely bought products which had negative ad campaigns, you likely voted for people who supported misandric policies, you likely went to movies with groin kicks and did nothing. You were likely at one point like all of us in the men's movement-ignorant of the issues."
Notice the following assumptions in words like "likely" and "most likely."
Please do not assume as you do not know. Lets stick as closely to the facts as possible. And I have not stated what I may have done or are currently doing to make any retributions that I may owe. Actually I do believe somewhere in this thread that I do support her causes for equality and fair treatment.
You seem to be well thought out in your arguments and have a much more reasonable approach to your responses. For your reasoning and understanding of my anger, I thank you.
Thank you also for your concern over my anger possibly alienating my wife. We, like all, have our problems but we both know what is first priority, not offense intended, none of you or your opinions are very high up there. Notice how she looked to Glenn for help. She looked to fix, not divide!
January 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Melissa said -- "The thing that confuses me most about this blog is the way the topic of the initial post is often completely ignored in the discussion."
No dear, it is not ignored.
It is morphed into how men think...
It's the same reason why women cannot read maps.
To think in spatial dimensions, you need to have to be able to imagine something beyond where you are presently.
In Evolutionary Psychological terms, this poses a problem for women who never left the back of the cave.
These women, who wisely valued safety for their children over adventure and hunting, were your ancestral mothers, for oh, about 40,000 years.
The women who ventured out of the cave were eaten.
Check out your gender's evolutionary DNA, and then propose why leaving the cave required the feminist Nanny State.
Because, when you leave the cave....
it can be scary?
And whittle girls need protection?
January 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Davina: I think your post from 7:57am is so good in so many ways!!
I especially agree that even though most women basically want to do what is good, the family courts actively discourage fairness. Very few people would have the moral strength to turn down >50% custody and a bunch of money, if it were offered to them with the veneer of being what they deserved!! The courts go out of their way to value the type of nurturing that mothers typically provide and to de-value the type of parenting fathers are more likely to do. Anyone who wasn't steadfast in their beliefs on the importance of Dad would be swayed. It also appears that many divorce lawyers will try to talk women into making allegations of abuse by encouraging them to distort their depictions of the normal arguments that take place between divorcing couples.
I think the only solution will be the pursuit of legislation for shared, 50-50 parenting on principle. We also need a real evidence threshold for granting restraining orders and the like. As AP points out, most people already support at leat the 50-50 part on principle. I also think most people support the original "innocent until proven guilty" principle that is supposed to be the norm in our legal system. So maybe these goals are not so difficult...
January 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
(BQ) -- "Eve picked that apple but Adam took a bite."
So, ummm, why didn't Eve have the integrity to bite the apple first?"
Was she not yet "liberated?"
Did she want Adam to pay for the apple before she had her meal?
Was she expecting that whatever she did, she would not be responsible?
I'm no Christian, so whatever answer you offer is just comedic superstition to me....
January 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
From roy: "From Anybody notice how the female posters gravitate towards the angst and drama of the initial interpersonal husband-and-wife dilemma (the local soap opera), and the guys are all into theory and political analysis and power themes and economics and why we should buy any woman a drink?"
Whoa, dude, this is way off base! I think I'm like 15-20% of the female posters, and I haven't even mentioned the angst! Have you even read all the female posters? Uh, no disrespect intended but I think these sweeping generalizations can be a bad idea!
January 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Paul, fair enough.
If your wife needs any support, which will not tell her you are just a big jerk, she is welcome to e-mail me at dogcrazyjen@yahoo.com. She is not the first wife to travel this path, and will not be the last. I think it is important for the movement that women are not alienated from the movement. I doubt she has many people to talk to about this issue who would understand and who would support the MRA position. I know there are many capable men here who can and are willing to be supportive to you.
Also, most people do some research in thier causes, then have faith. Most feminists believed in good faith because the information came from what looked to be trustworthy sources. Everyone of any cause at some point has to have faith that he is getting good information, even the men's movement. Statistics are easily manipulated, and even trustworthy sources like hospitals, schools, and charities can give out false information, many times unintentionally.
When a doctor tells you the lump on your neck needs to be removed, do you trust him or do you get another opinion? If the second opinion agrees, do you keep going or do you have the lump removed? If the 10th doctor tells you it is nothing, do you trust him, and why? In either case, unless you yourself do a biopsy, you must trust others to gather and interprete the information.
We were given statistics which came from university funded research and government studies. How were we to know these were false? As I said, the internet was not available, and the people we got the info from believed it was true. Now that we do know, our behavior is accountable. Back then we didn't even know there was a reason to be skeptical.
Finally, I assumed you were duped like us all due to your anger and passion now. If you had always know, I would have guessed you would not be so suprised. If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize. It was not meant as an insult, more as commiseration. My husband and I were also very angry and suprised when we started learning.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Kevin,
To see who is arguing with my point, read Roy's post above, for example.
You are concerned about action, and that means working on actionable fronts. So am I.
That is the point of encouraging people to not spend their time on non-actionable, non-fronts, like debating amorphous philosophies held by amorphous "groups".
Regarding use of viral email marketing, I think you will find there are excellent precedents for this working as a way to get a 10-X list size improvement, and then 10-X again, and I hope it is not lost on you that such suggestions are being put before Glenn's eyes as well as those of others, which does not negate my own proffering of those methods and funding for same to yet others. Glenn recently reported to me his list size in response to a direct question on same. Such lists are not of course just lists, but networks of people who may share like views, passions and beliefs, and therefore be likely to act on appropriate requests -- like passing a message along. In my work, I hire people and specialist firms to design, execute upon and monitor viral marketing campaigns. We do this because it works. Sometimes, a campaign catches on like wildfire. It should not surprise you that many of the issues touched on in this blog are ones which do, by their very nature, carry such wildfire potential -- especially if the goal is not to sell anything, but simply to inform and embrace.
As for other specific action items, I think you can probably tell or at least reasonably infer that my own efforts are hardly limited to the energizing activity of writing here. But like most men who write here, I too am mindful that America's family courts hold our children and access to them as a ransom to punish fathers who push back on the courts. In some parts of the U.S., the blatancy, the arrogance, and the brutality of the courts in doing this is much worse than others. Fathers who, by virtue of their other activities in life, may present as being much more frightening to those who malfease in our courts than others. Such fathers are wise to keep their names out of this blog, and conduct their efforts lawfully and through appropriate intermediaries, lest their children be used to punish and deter them.
My efforts on, and reasons for visiting this blog are several, but include
1. trying to hone specific ideas by removing rough edges and other potential "gotchas",
2. to get primary information from others who have clearly done years of research on a topic which is comparatively new to me,
3. push out carefully designed and appropriate messaging phrases for any and all to use or not as they see fit,
4. continuously reminding myself of the importance lawfully slaying the serpent of American family court, which importance is made crystal clear by the many tragedies manifest by others here, and
5. venting, which due to the loss of 1st Amendment rights under threat of court retaliation via their use of one's children as a free-speech and protest suppression weapon against fathers.
In closing Kevin, I am not a person who is lacking in assets nor the will to lawfully use them. But I do believe in constructing carefully worked out, and legal "firing solutions" so to speak, which means focusing on appropriate and lawful targets for change within our government's branches and permitted communication vehicles. Most of the work in doing this is actually in finding the proper points of legal attack. I have offered up some of what might be called "low cost field tactics" to people via this blog. Viral web marketing is one of those. I have also explained in careful detail how state legislatures are largely comprised of sheep most of whom may be turned as a flock in their entirety by carefully targeted, lawful, legislator election take-out campaigns. This is another low-cost field tactic.
My offering up such tactics here does not mean that I do not feel that the legislative or free-speech campaign equivalent of an ICBM with MIRVs should not be thoughfully targeted and deployed to lawfully achieve proper change in America through fully legal means.
Final point. Where I come from, the largest philanthropic donors tend to make their "gifts" anonymously. There are good reasons for this practice. There are even better reasons for helping anonymously when it comes to the very serious topics and problems being addressed in this blog, court-controlled child-hostages being one of them.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
@ Paul: Her POST was about not knowing what to do to make you happy! You responded by saying you're angry and that she should pay penance- not what YOU would like her to do, what "penance" should be! So fine, you don't want people to talk about it, whatever- you obviously just wanted to "correct" her wild assertions that she should be able to figure out what exactly it is you want her to do. You just want to be angry. Have at it. Good luck.
TheBiscuitQueen : fear of manipulated "facts" is something that you've mentioned a few times- that you (and Hannah) were "duped" and feminists in general are "duped..." what make you feel so certain in the "facts" you read now?
January 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
@Gary
I like that quote by Susan B. Anthony but did not respond at first because, frankly, I know very little about the woman.
["Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences."]
Susan B. Anthony
I have to admit there is still an awful lot I don’t know outside of what a quick read at “Wiki” has to say about her.
I think her quote is very accurate and should be heeded by all of us. I think people’s tendency to hide their identities in forums like this is exactly what she was talking about. Can any of us imagine a Declaration of Independence signed by the likes of Anonymous, or John H., or Thomas J., or some of the pseudonyms used on websites like this? In fact we would never have become a “free people” (relatively speaking of course) if the founders had acted like this.
I agree with her quote, and I think we all need to respect her courage. However, she did not face the hangman’s noose as the founders did. She owed her ability to fight for the rights of women, to the founders, and apparently showed little gratitude for that fact.
I also find it very interesting that she was against abortion, but blamed the practice on men.
["No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!...]
-Susan B. Anthony
January 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
@Melissa,
It appears that you failed remedial reading comprehension once again. NO WHERE in Hannahs post does it stating anything about "making me happy." Again, if you read it actually states
"My question for you is, what do you think I can do to show my husband that I do see many of the problems men are facing, and that I advocate fair treatment for all people male/female/white/black/all religions, etc?"
NOWHERE does it say Happy, Melissa. In fact the word "Happy" is NEVER used in her message to Glenn!
AGAIN, I request, if you are to state fact and quote do so in full accuracy and full context, do NOT change wording or context to validate your point. Simply you are wrong!
AGAIN Melissa, READ MY POSTS but this time PAY attention and perhaps take some notes, I DO STATE WHAT I EXPECT HER TO DO!
Reading is only half the job here Melissa, now comprehend! Read it for what it says Melissa, not what you want it to say!
January 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
@AP
“In closing Kevin, I am not a person who is lacking in assets nor the will to lawfully use them. But I do believe in constructing carefully worked out, and legal "firing solutions" so to speak, which means focusing on appropriate and lawful targets for change within our government's branches and permitted communication vehicles …
Interesting response AP. And you’re welcome to your opinions of course.
Funny how everything the Founding Fathers did was illegal, and everything Hitler did was legal.
I say, that most actions taken against criminals, whether “technically legal” or otherwise, are showing the highest respect for the law that anyone can muster.
Isn’t it odd that you want to respect the so-called law of people who are out-and-out criminals?
If your line of reasoning is correct, then the Founding Fathers, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and too many others to mention here are all wrong, and AP has it right.
To each his own.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
AP: What I see in your posts is a direct refusal to acknowledge the power of public opinion. There isn't a single political force in the past that was able to effect any kind of change to the society they target without at least tacit approval from the masses. EVERYTHING done in the name of "women's rights" was justified by using women as a "prop"...fair enough. But to state that highlighting unfairness to men is counter-productive, what I will tell you is swaying popuilar opinion is a CRUCIAL FIRST STEP in the whole process you describe.
I have no doubt you are a very smart man....problem is, you're reducing everything to logic, and women do NOT respond to logic, neither do men in general. Emotion is what sways public opinion....make people sympathetic to men, they'll care what happens to us, then they will clamour for equality right along with us. Every single despotic government, tyrant, and otherwise Generally Bad Leader started out with at least apparent popular support. For that matter, no one rules without the consent of the people in ANY style of government. Basic political science.
Sure, go and attack the power structures that are arrayed against us...do all the legal and logical maneuvers you choose....but until men talking about these issues are regarded as anything other than "whiners" you have ZERO chance of succeeding, since if there's enough popular support any victory can be swept aside with new laws to address the "loopholes". Get it?
We HAVE to win over the sympathies of society. We will NOT do this by simply stating our case and waiting for everyone to go "you know what, he's right...I'll give up all this privelige and extra money out of a sense of fairness".....sorry, not going to happen. You have to make it socially unacceptable to bash men, just like it's (way overboard) socially unacceptable to criticize women. People are selfish and narrow-minded by nature...ask anyone who has spent any time in a retail environment...it crosses all socio-economic boundaries, everyone acts very similar....in their self interest. Without showing people that the ones they hurt are the ones close to them (Melissa loves her husband, but it's pretty clear she has no love of "men" as a group) - we need to make the connection that the group and the individual are the same.
Until you have the "heart" of the people, you will never get them on your side for anything. Think of the steps a person has to go through to buy anything.... First, they have to listen to you, then they have to like you, then they have to believe you, then they can buy from you....not until. Don't believe me? Ever go to a store to buy a specific item you really want, and run into an asshole salesman you just can't stand? Did you buy anything from him? Didn't think so.... you likely went to another store and bought there....
Men don't get people to listen to them by whining...all those men getting left by women calling them "wussies" (rightfully in my opinion by the way) can attest to that. We must get angry, we must demand attention, but yes, we also must be willing to accept differing levels of commitment to men's issues for what they are....the degree to which that individual views the importance of the issue. How a woman can get as passionate as a man over reproductive choice for men, without the issue affecting someone they know and love, is beyond me. Likely doesn't even occur to them as a problem. But when they are faced with a loved one destroyed at the whim of another....well, then it's suddenly important...right?
Connecting the issues with personal experience, winning over the hearts of as many people as possible, and publicizing our issues is a critical first step that has hardly begun. As to casting things as gov't vs the people....well shit AP, just look at the defense of such things....you're not against women and children are you? Stop "whining" and "be a man"....ever hear that?
Like it or not, women's fear and hatred of men has been leveraged to effect this change, and until women are ASHAMED of that type of behaviour, MRM has no chance of success.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
BQ: Good to see you around again...
"Back then we didn't even know there was a reason to be skeptical."
I would suggest common sense was more than enough impetus to question the claims feminism made. I recognize that by the time feminism became a blight rather than a boon to society, it was already established as a "good cause", but women are not completely blameless and you know it. I know PLENTY of women who are aware of the unfairness of a lot of things, like ladies night/government programs/social bias in their favour. Universally they shrug and say "that's just the way it is, get over it".
Honest to God, I don't think I've ever met a woman who doesn't take this tack on a good portion of men's issues...although to be fair on a theoretical level, I haven't met many women that are against what I believe either. In other words, the vast majority of women agree with MRA's in THEORY, it's just when it comes time to translate those theories into PRACTICE that it becomes suddenly problematic.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
"In other words, the vast majority of women agree with MRA's in THEORY, it's just when it comes time to translate those theories into PRACTICE that it becomes suddenly problematic."
Well, I think there is a big difference between changing to male friendly practices and retribution. I would certainly say I and others have changed our behavior, but I refuse to talk retribution. Why? Because men also were duped in the same way women were duped. Men made these things happen as much as we did, and most importantly, I do not believe in retribution. I think it is a waste of time and energy and does not change anything. Feminism has been all about retribution, and look what good that has done. I do not believe in it for race, and I do not believe in it for gender.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I'm right there with you on the retribution thing BQ, with an important caveat....namely that continued silence on men's issues and misandry be construed as continued tacit approval and support of feminist goals. Given the fact that with most women, silence was primarily their method of supporting feminism, I don't think my position unreasonable at all.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
AP, you make some valids, however you're missing something. Dan M has pretty much summed up quite well what I wanted to say to you.
Furthermore, what you seem not to realise is that something created the corrupt system of which you speak. Materialism and Feminism all work in sync to keep the system corrupt and particularly unfair to men. Someone equated the modern feminist movement to running a business and as a professional I can definitely agree with that. Coupled with materialism, they make a formidable team.
The fact is that modern feminism will NOT make any changes. Why? Because their business is NOT about equality, it's about looking out for their own hides at whatever costs that may be to men and even children to a great extent. The mainstream media, from Hollywood to children's television, feeds the beast that is modern feminism, telling women that no matter what, you can and should have your cake and eat it too. We see no protests in the streets. No responsibility being placed on our politicans. Feminists are still the sole authority on what constitutes "equality". Why isn't there an opposition? (Sure the MRA is gaining in strength, I'm just saying it's at least 30 years too late). Around the world developing countries look to western societies for guidance in basically everything, including gender issues. Yet in every single western nation, systemic discrimination of men is rampant, though on varying levels. What an example.
The other day we discussed the Scandinavian model which is often portrayed as the ideal to us here in the US. I made the point that, looks can sometimes be deceptive. Men and fathers are just as likely to suffer from legalised misandry as their American counterparts in Scandinavia. Moreover, Scandinavia is made up of socialist countries who don't have the excuse of materialism to the same extent as we do in America, therefore the continued systematic discrimination of men fall squarely on shoulders of women who don't insist on evening(sp) the scales and men who just sit back and do or say nothing.
People are grossly ignorant. I have no evidence to back this up but it's quite clear (to me at least) that at least 3/4 of the American population is unaware that men can be any sort of victim in our society today. Or as Dan M said, the movement needs to appeal to the emotions of the masses, people's sense of fairness. When we have programmes like Oprah and Dr. Phil feeding the gossip mill, portraying men as nothing but rapists, abusers, murders ... and practically no opposition, what else can you expect really? Of course they're going to believe the propoganda spreading.
You mention that people are just living their lives and don't have time to sit around and consider plight of half the nation's population. My point is that considering our current state of affairs, which was very eloquently described by you, we can not afford to sit around and live in blissful oblivion. Considering the current rate of divorce at least 50% of married men can look forward to a possibly nasty awakening in family court. At the rate at which modern feminists are left to run wild with their discriminatory ideology with no organised, widespread opposition my sons or your sons can very easily be falsely accused of all sorts of horrendous crimes. Our daughters will continue to have an entitlement syndrome which tells them that's it's okay to hit or drive cars over their men because ... well it's "funny" and "he probably deserved it".
January 8th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Dan M, right on. I couldn't find anything in your posts that I disagree with.
TheBiscuitQueen, I see the point in a lot of what you've said but I think Dan is right when he says "the vast majority of women agree with MRA's in THEORY, it's just when it comes time to translate those theories into PRACTICE that it becomes suddenly problematic." This is very true and I think you know this. Men, on their side, will also agree in theory but when it comes to translating those theories into practice they don't make it a priority until it's too late.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
True enough, Dan and Davina. I guess I want a very clear line between change and retribution, but I can see that most people, men and women alike, will do what they will do regardless of understanding and agreeing with MRA positions.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
"TheBiscuitQueen : fear of manipulated "facts" is something that you've mentioned a few times- that you (and Hannah) were "duped" and feminists in general are "duped..." what make you feel so certain in the "facts" you read now?"
Good question. I am not 100% sure, but I am pretty confident. I have, however, learned to discriminate based on validity of the source, and their potential bias, which is something most people fail to do, especially when young.
I look for 1st source material, such as the Department of Justice, Department of Education and US Census Bureau.
I look for independant studies, and want to see the original reports. I do not trust feminist statistics or masculist statistics unless they are unfavorable to their views, such as feminist DV studies which show a lot of male victims. I also look at the opposing positions of these stats to see holes in the theory. I look for studies which are not from feminist universities or groups such as Ms or NOW. Books which have been very helpful are 'War on Boys', 'Who Stole Feminism', and 'The Myth of Male Power'.These are very well researched texts with a lot of studies and ideas. I then go online and look for the original source material to back them up.
I also would rather see the stats myself and make my own judgements. I can get DOJ stats on the number of men and women murdered each year and see that men outnumber women 3/1 for victimization. I can also see that 17% of all reported DV victims are men. So rather than hear 1 in 4 women are abused from NOW or a women's studies program, or hear a group claim that the number one reason for women to be hospitalized is DV, I can look at the actual numbers and make up my own mind. Now I did not have this privilage 20 years ago as a feminist-the only info for a non-university person was the feminists themselves.
I think we are blessed to live in such an information age. How quickly we forget it was not so long ago most of this information was out of reach to most of us.
Basically, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I will not be caught unawares again.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Dan M, that was a great post about winning over the hearts of people. It's sort of like stardom. Some people will say "But he's ugly and he has no talent. There's no way he should be a star." The point is that he won over the public. It would make sense that talent is a requirement but it's not. Just look at Paris Hilton. and Anna Nicole Smith. Completely devoid of talent.
But I wish you wouldn't underestimate the power of pointing out the facts. Logic can account for very much. An insurance man came to my house today and I mention the MRM. He had no idea such a thing existed. To some people that is great and positive news. The seeds of positive change could be planted simply because this man has an alternative to feminism. It's sort of like business. When you only have one product most people buy it. But when competition arrives people buy the new product too. I believe that blogging alone, is a very effective weapon against the negative aspects of feminism. I don't even believe we need a great national movement to be effective. If more men (and women) voted with their feet and spread the word then we can bring down the gender feminist straw house. I'm happy for this blog and it is doing great work. But never underestimate the power of logic and information.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
AP said:
“There are even better reasons for helping anonymously when it comes to the very serious topics and problems being addressed in this blog, court-controlled child-hostages being one of them.”
I just wanted to add AP, that I think you’re “dead wrong” on this aspect. The courts benefit immensely by preying on people who are scared to reveal their identity to the public.
They “very much” want to prey on nameless and faceless victims. If the public can’t put a name and a face on the oppression then it doesn’t exist.
I think people need to shed the phony names and shout their grievances out load to everyone. You will then see the cowards who preside over our courts run with their tail between their legs hoping that they won’t be prosecuted for violating peoples’ constitutional rights.
You are “dead wrong” if you think the answer is to cower in anonymity.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Stephen:
I understand your point, and agree completely. The thing not recognized often is that you must, I repeat MUST have a sympathetic ear before you can start in with the "facts". If the person "listening" to you is actually tuning you out, then you've accomplished nothing. if you succeed in abrogating some injustice, if the people are not sympathetic then they will view it as men "getting away with it" rather than "getting justice". See what I mean? One results in closing a legal "loophole" and the other results in triumphant men getting a fairer shake. Which do you prefer?
Facts and logic bore the sh_t out of people, always, unless they are interested in hearing what YOU have to say....then they'll listen to damn near anything. To be honest, what the MRM needs is a rich, powerful, handsome spokesman. Someone women would melt their panties to talk to. THEN you'd start to get some traction. And no, I'm not being facetious.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Bisquit Queen says "Also, you have, really, no right to demand [Hannah] become an active MRA." That is a good point. I think what is at work there goes to a deeper level...
Many MRA's and their supporters are very angry (and have a right to be), but what lots of them end up doing is attacking certain women including those who could have been potential allies, such as Wendy McElroy...
It seems like virtually anytime a women posts on a men's rights board, or even if some woman shows just a little bit of equivocation about the validity of feminism, that's all it takes to get the guys fired up and to really dump on the woman. It seems to be a psychological issue whereby someone has stored anger for so long that as soon as they see a possible sympathetic ear, they target her for all they're wrath and end up alienating these women (like they did to McElroy. After attacks on her, she has subsequently made negatives statements about MRA's - not their cause , but MRA's themselves).
January 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I hear you Norman, and while it may seemingly go against my previous statements, what I contend is that McElroy and the like are responding more to rejection of their leadership than any other "slight". She made a political play to steer the "menfolk" in the direction SHE found acceptable, and the menfolk said "screw you, we can find our own way". Everything else is just sour grapes. I like what she writes most of the time, but her ego is fantastically huge when it comes to "knowing what's right". At least, in my estimation this is so. I don't personally see great loss when jettisoning someone that wants to hijack the men's movement, and if Glenn suddenly started acting that way, I'd pitch him too.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Be very skeptical of DOJ/FBI stats. at least as far as false rape allegations. The FBI keeps tracks of the number of allegations, but not whether the guys are eventually found guilty or not, or anything else subsequent to the allegation. Farrell has pointed this out in M.O.M.P.
For example, Wendy McElroy within the last year, posted on her web site that she herself did an exhaustive review of DOJ/BJS statistics and came up with a 25% rate of false allegations. But I would question the validity of that. .it's probably too low.
I'm not trying to change the subject to rape allegations, but am just pointing out the issues with DOJ stats in general.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Dan,
the overwhelming sense I get of McElroy, is that she wants MRA's to "play by the rules" in pursuing their cause. Basically the feminist-P.C. rules..which of course didn't exist back in the 60's and 70's, when feminists were doing things like calling men "male chauvinist pigs". In other words, McElroy has a double standard. Also she herself claims that we still need feminism. That's ridiculous..while it is true that women do not have full equality in all areas, those remaining issues could be resolved in the normal course of things over the next few years. There has been more than enough momentum gathered in that direction.
But do you really think that there will ever come a time, when feminists will say, "OKay!! We've accomplished our goals..now let us disband"? Tens of mllions of women have tremendous energy invested in the wearing of this identity badge, "feminist"..they have found a voice and are damn sure going to use it, from now unto eternity.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Jacinta Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 3:03 am
I noticed that comments were made about how gender based chargers were seen to be women's fault. You do realize that it is usually MEN BUSINESS OWNERS who BOTH come up the ideas and implement them. So if you are mad that your insurance company charges you for being male or the clubs who charge you more, my sympathy, but you should BLAME and ADDRESS the blading old guy trying to make a dollar off you not the women who had nothing to do with it. Also remember it's your dollar they are after, if you go to the bars that attract the women who go because they can get in free...the club owner will continue to have "ladies night". YOUR dollar votes, esspecially to businesses.
= = =
In NY ladies nights are and have been illegal for some time and they still go on, no one will enforce it even if you call on them. The law has no teeth because it is never enforced.
b
January 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Davina Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Paul Says:
Of all people Glenn, I would expect you to know that without action, words are valueless.
-----------------------------------
I don’t always agree with Glenn either, but I think THIS is exactly the point he’s trying to make with the comment “men, as a whole, have not done much to defend themselves”. And I agree with him. I’ve found that men and women actually do support men’s issues to a large extent. For the time being, considering that if someone attacks you, the onus is on you to defend yourself; my comments are directed at men.
Too many men are cowards when it comes to speaking out on a lot of the nonsense modern feminism spew. They cower in the face of reality and choose not to voice their concerns. Secondly, the “me” culture that we live in. If something doesn’t directly affect you, who give a damn, right? Too many men just don’t care … that is, until they have the misfortune of ending up in family court or being falsely accused of DV or rape.
= = =
A couple of problems here. Have you ever seen a man speak out in a crowd regarding these issues? I have done it and get lambasted by both women and men. From the men it is on the order of man up and from the women the same with exception that women will physically go nose to nose with me and scream in my face. If that were a man I would warn him to back off or I will back him off, being a woman if that is even suggested 20 people will jump on you and tell you go ahead and we will beat the shit out of you.
If women want equality they should be "adult" enough to argue fairly and like an adult and not a child throwing a tantrum knowing that whether or not others agree with you your bad, aggressive, violent, behavior will be defended because you are a "woman."
There comes a time when getting beat up like this becomes enough. I still do it but to the risk of my heath mentally and physically. I do not believe that women have to endure this or if they do no where near to the same extent.
The me culture I am sorry but that is universal to male and female. Very few are motivated unless it affects them or are misinformed that it affects them. I am not like that.
b
January 8th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I know the question was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway... No, feminism will never say "OK, that's the last of it", pack up and go home. That much is obvious to all. What never gets admitted to (mostly by feminists), is that to continue funding more and more injustice must be invented, exaggerated, or confused....and no one can show a single legitimate area where feminism is working towards anything of use. Feminism had it's day, it's accomplished great things, but outside of "safeguarding" (royalties?) women's rights, feminism has nothing to say of value anymore, truly. It really seems like an empty bureaucracy in self-preservation mode....no?
January 8th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
OK, OK, OK,
I have to finally throw this on the table. My wife did not always "see" men’s plight either. Over the years she says she understands and has even picked out unjust news stories in the media and pointed them out to me. One of the arguments that we would have is that I would say you (a women) wanted these equal rights and I will be sure that you get them including lack of chivalrous perks and receive all of the responsibilities. She would say "I did not want this; I like things the way they were." Honestly I believe her. My counter argument would be "Did you do ANYTHING to abate the movements path?" "No." was her answer. I would say "Then you did not fight against it you are in part to blame for where things are for women and men today." She could not see that point. I believe she does now but a little to little too late.
The point is as I think others are trying to point out is that making no decision is making a decision by default. I do not believe in blaming the men though because there were and are laws in place that should not have allowed much of this to happen. We should have been protected by the current system and we were not. Men did fight to make, pass, and enforce these laws then women came along and said no, no, no, we do not like that and protection laws were overturned or ignored. It hard to see a sucker punch coming. The shame lies with the women who threw it not the men who were hit by it.
b
January 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
(Dan M.) -- "I have no doubt you are a very smart man....problem is, you're reducing everything to logic, and women do NOT respond to logic, neither do men in general. Emotion is what sways public opinion....make people sympathetic to men, they'll care what happens to us, then they will clamour for equality right along with us."
There were a whole lot of Jews living in Germany not so long ago --- maybe 3 million -- who subscribed to your idealistic idea.
"They'll care ..."
Sadly, none of them can post on this thread to refute your naivety.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Dan M Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I know the question was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway... No, feminism will never say "OK, that's the last of it", pack up and go home. That much is obvious to all. What never gets admitted to (mostly by feminists), is that to continue funding more and more injustice must be invented, exaggerated, or confused....and no one can show a single legitimate area where feminism is working towards anything of use. Feminism had it's day, it's accomplished great things, but outside of "safeguarding" (royalties?) women's rights, feminism has nothing to say of value anymore, truly. It really seems like an empty bureaucracy in self-preservation mode....no?
= = =
Yes
Valid point. Very good.
b
January 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
roy Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
(Dan M.) -- "I have no doubt you are a very smart man....problem is, you're reducing everything to logic, and women do NOT respond to logic, neither do men in general. Emotion is what sways public opinion....make people sympathetic to men, they'll care what happens to us, then they will clamour for equality right along with us."
There were a whole lot of Jews living in Germany not so long ago --- maybe 3 million -- who subscribed to your idealistic idea.
"They'll care ..."
Sadly, none of them can post on this thread to refute your naivety.
= = =
Then we as a society are lost. When we allow our emotions to over-ride our intellect, we will loose every time.
Here is a test to be answered later
You and your 9 year old child are in a plane. It rapidly decompresses and the oxygen masks drop. Who do you put the mask on first you or your child?
b
January 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Dan M, I've come to the conclusion that we need a multi-pronged attack. I believe that winning the hearts of the people comes first. Information second. And yes I agree about a handsome spokesman because it's all about packaging. Then we have M.G.T.O.W. There are several tactics I would borrow from the feminist camp too. I'm glad to be a part of a revolution in the making. Just watch, this is going to be big.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
(Somebody said) -- "Feminism has been all about retribution, and look what good that has done. I do not believe in it for race, and I do not believe in it for gender."
Feminism has not ever been about retribution, because that philosophical concept entails just making past wrongs right.
Feminism has been all about the subjugation of men, because feminists perceive power as a zero-sum contest between genders.
Radical feminism achieved retribution when women got the vote.
In order to refute my argument, you have to explain the feminist conception of power as something other than infantile victimization.
I'm hoping to learn...
January 8th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
# roy Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
(Dan M.) -- "I have no doubt you are a very smart man....problem is, you're reducing everything to logic, and women do NOT respond to logic, neither do men in general. Emotion is what sways public opinion....make people sympathetic to men, they'll care what happens to us, then they will clamour for equality right along with us."
There were a whole lot of Jews living in Germany not so long ago --- maybe 3 million -- who subscribed to your idealistic idea.
"They'll care ..."
Sadly, none of them can post on this thread to refute your naivety.
_______________________________________________________________________
Then Roy, I suggest you go back to your history class, the Jews tried every LEGAL argument they could, the people wrote their wins off as "slick jew lawyer" stuff. It's precisely because the Jews didn't mount their own propaganda war that they ended up incinerated in a death camp....not because they tried and failed. They never tried.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
In short, any legal wins will be negated by the very "anti lawyer sentiment" you tout as being our saving grace.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
(Bernie M. ) --"You and your 9 year old child are in a plane. It rapidly decompresses and the oxygen masks drop. Who do you put the mask on first you or your child?"
This is a silly question about believing in birth and death.
So, I would ask you --
"You have been chased by a tiger and have succeeded in escaping its jaws by launching yourself over a cliff and now you are clingling onto a few fragile branches and you are looking up into the tiger's eyes. The tiger has your branch in its teeth..."
Do you let the tiger rescue you, or do you let go?
(And, no ... Jesus is not behind the tiger....)
January 8th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Dan M.,
I agree completely on the importance of public opinion, which is exactly why I seek to harness the strong, mutual and majorative Male+Female public opinion that shared parenting, 50/50 should be the rule, and with no profit to either party in divorce. This would negate and kill off the cash supply to those who feed on the economic blood of families at American family court.
Some might call this a "pure play" in recogizing, coalescing and harnessing public opionion to a directed and useful objective.
Less well-defined, and not very well bounded concepts and constructs such as "men's rights", "women's rights" are not actionable unless they are translated into specific actionable policies on a topic by topic basis. We have strong, fair and successful laws against gender discrimination at the workplace. These are crystal clear, they make sense to the vast majority of Americans, and have resulted in on-the-ground practices which are now deeply rooted in the workplaces of America. This is an example of a well defined problem, a well defined solution, and clear and reasonable results mainfest in the lives of all Americans.
Family life lends itself to a similar, well-focused, well-defined and understandable solution. It is very hard for me to follow what it is exactly that those who call themselves MRAs or feminists actually want. I have been reading this blog for most of the past year, and I frankly would be at a loss to summarize it other than to say that they both seem to want "respect". Great. So how would you like to legislate that state of mind among people? Pass a law against gender-based disrespectful thoughts?
In my view, the key is to address specific behaviors by individuals or, in the despicable example of American family court, institutions.
I'm seeking a crystal clear solution to a disturbing inequity and pattern of crime against American families being greedily committed by America's family courts and their private practitioners. A crystal clear problem with known scope, and a crystal clear solution to that problem.
Kevin,
My goal is to legally remove so much of the economic opportunity improperly fed upon by family court professional parasites that the vast majority of these "people" are legally and justly driven into the type of punishing lifelong poverty and oppression they have cruelly inflicted upon countless American families and men. It is my further goal that these "professionals" be stuck with, and repeatedly confronted by, for the remainder of their lives, the inescapable knowledge that they are universally despised as our century's vicious and grotesque serial destroyers and looters families, based upon the cumulative crimes against American families and family members which they have collectively committed.
For Dan M.'s, benefit, and to further respond to his point, I would point out that my goal is to unmask and coalesce the enormous existing, valid and searingly negative public opinion against these "professionals".
For your benefit Kevin, I would point out that "Art of War" principles, as set forth in the book which you surely know by that name, apply fully to people like myself who always make clear their intentions to operate legally and lawfully in all contexts. Collecting intelligence is important. Secrecy is important. The element of surprise is important. And recognizing when an enemy can and will exploite your own as hostages is important. All of this wisdom can be applied lawfully and successfully, even if one is facing a lawless foe like American family courts and their greed- and power-crazed lawyers, judges, and complicit, money- and power-motivated legislators. They way I operate is to always be lawful in all that I do, no matter how unlawful is the behavior of opposition.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
(Betsy) -- "Uh, no disrespect intended but I think these sweeping generalizations can be a bad idea!"
Ummm, last time I checked the Family Court legal code, sweeping generalizations were your gender's preferred currency.
Don't be shy about refuting my arrogant and misogynist argument!
January 8th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Dan M. -- "They never tried."
You sir, are beyond contempt.
Let my comrades dine upon your carcass...
January 9th, 2008 at 12:28 am
AP said:
“They way I operate is to always be lawful in all that I do, no matter how unlawful is the behavior of opposition.”
@AP
Sometimes you make pretty good sense, but at other times I wonder if you aren’t some 13 year old kid playing on his dad’s computer.
You’re breaking the law by cooperating with criminals. If you cooperate with criminals, you’re no better than they are.
Didn’t your dad teach you that?
No one is breaking any laws by refusing to cooperate with people who are breaking every law in the book. You are in fact breaking the law if you cooperate with these people. In that respect, I don’t break any laws either, and maybe that’s what you’re trying to say.
I would just like to hear more about ways to help each other fight this corruption and less energy devoted to lip-service.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Roy,
Relax I don't think Dan started the Nazi & Jewish victim argument and only responded to it when asked so any reference to him being beyond contempt seems out of place. It is worth noting he was taking the side the Jewish people attempted legal maneuvers that failed and never stood up otherwise hence his statement they "never tried." I am sure he was not mocking the atrocities and perhaps even made an indictment against our own movement for not really trying to fix our own problems with legal maneuvers that have no chance to win. So what if one in ten fathers actually "wins" custody is that success? And those making up the actual feminist movement do want to harm men as they view us in the prism of past injustices whether those injustices were real or imagined.
I will write it again and again and again....we have to target judges if we're going to get anything done in our Democratic society since every law we've tweeked failed to really change anything thanks to judges who refuse to believe men can be full fledged parents post divorce.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Roy: Not exactly sure where you're going with that remark, but the holocaust is no laughing matter, and it's also worth examining how it could have happened in the first place...n'est pas? Seems to me that a lot of Germans disagreed with the NAZI party privately, but publicly said nothing (usually out of fear). It's simplistic analysis, sure, and maybe my tone isn't "reverent" enough for you, but how that makes me "beyond contempt" is beyond me.
My contention is if the Jews had gotten the public support necessary for the public to OPENLY disagree with the NAZI party line, the holocaust would not have happened. There would likely have been ghettos, maybe a few "prisons" for forced labour, but there would at least not have been anything remotely like Auschwitz... if only the people of Germany had felt motivated enough to say out loud what they felt inside.
I'd say there's a pretty big power in marketing. In fact, the real advances in marketing came about during this era, only then they called it Propaganda, and it's use was heavily increased and improved by none other than the NAZI party. My contention is the Holocaust was, in part, able to happen due to lack of public support (openly expressed) of fair treatment of Jews. The fact that this didn't happen does not in any way reflect badly upon them by the way, the concept applied on a mass scale was pretty esoteric at the time. The Jews were a victim of a direct and massive propaganda attack, long before they were subjugated publicly. This is well known. Why people think it suddenly doesn't apply here because this is "modern times" sort of eludes me a bit.
We have, as men, been the target of a decades long, diffused, and persistent propaganda war. The rampant misandry you see around you is a result of that. The response we give MUST include a propaganda, or marketing, approach or I truly believe it leaves the door wide open for public opinion to slam wins in our face. For instance, say we win a case enshrining equal reproductive rights for men based on a constitutional argument, and public opinion runs counter to that win. Spokesmen come out all the time to decry one decision or another for the evening news. Say the average person believes men should have equal reproductive rights, disagrees with said spokesman but says nothing. Said person goes to work the next day and the office feminist is passing around a petition to reverse the decision, demanding everyone sign up under her watchful eye. This feminist is the head of HR, and her best friend is the CIO, so you don't want to piss her off....you sign the petition even though you disagree, because it's not worth losing your job over it...
Next thing you know, there's a news story about a constitutional amendment in the legislature to specifically deny men the right to reproductive choice, in response to massive public input...
Ok, it's extreme, but it shows the mechanism this can happen by fairly clearly I think...
January 9th, 2008 at 5:52 am
I agree with Dan we have to start an effective national marketing campaign, combined with real voter strength which can only come from meeting halls, money, and a political agenda knocking out particularly bad judges. If we do these things we will change the culture of secrecy and acceptance that allows men to be mistreated and children to be needlessly stripped of their fathers. Any strategy that fails to employ the above is doomed to miserably fail.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Here is an interesting thought as to where we are heading.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/subverting_science_to_ideology.html
January 06, 2008
Subverting Science to Ideology
By Arvid Börtz
"Gender research" in Sweden has a haunting historical precursor in the realm of politicized science.
We are all well aware today that environmental and climate research is heavily politicized and that politically correct politicians are using this so-called science in order to increase taxes in several areas. Sweden, where I live, and the EU in general are particularly good at this sort of taxation.
However, there is another area of science today that is extremely politicized. It has not been given as much attention among conservatives, but it is politicized to such an extent that much of the "research" is not even worthy of being called "science."
The subject is gender.
Gender research publications in Sweden are used by the massive welfare state to rule out all norms of human behavior and declare "obsolete" all traditional morals and ethics. They call their research "science" and then ridicule all opponents of feminism, "diversity" and "gender equality" as ignoramuses denying the findings of science. Social engineering backed by a substantial portion of the Swedish GDP is reworking the basic institutions of human life and reproduction.
Race Biology
This is not the first time politicized science has held sway in my country. In 1921, on the Friday 13th of May, the Swedish national parliament voted to create a "Statens institut för rasbiologi"; a National Institute of Racial Biology. It was given the task by the state to
"strive for a steady theoretical foundation for an exact racial hygiene and a rational demographic politics".
The attempt was to scientifically determine the characteristics of a small subgroup of humanity, the few million Swedes, and engineer a better race. The same ferment which later animated the Nazi racial programs received the imprimatur of the Swedish state.
The proposal was championed by major politicians, like rightist Arvid Lindmann and Social Democrat Hjalmar Branting. All the parties from the Left to the Right voted yes on this issue. There were no ideological differences during the debates. The one debate was how much financial support the institute should get. The morality of the venture was never challenged. All the parties happily were in unanimous agreement.
This happy story ends in Auschwitz.
When we look back at that situation today, it is hard to believe it could ever happen; all parties agreeing on the same issue without any ideological debate or polemics, on such a delicate matter that if it would have been brought up today you would definitely go to jail charged with "Hate Speech".
There is one perfectly simple answer; it was the political correctness of that time.
it reminds me a lot of contemporary politics in Sweden; no ideological differences between the Left and the Right -- only arguing over how much money that should be spent on this and that.
Today we can see the same thing happening all over again, though in the opposite extreme direction. But this time it is really about denying all differences among people, to the extreme.
The Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research
The National Secretariat of Gender Research was inaugurated in 1998 on the 2nd of September. Two years earlier the national parliament voted to create such an institute and place it at the University of Gothenburg "to put greater effort on research with sex-/gender perspective".
No one was arguing about morals here, either.
On its website, the University of Gothenburg says it is looking for a professor whose "expertise mainly concerns equality- and diversity issues and gender scientific organization theory." This is no joke; they want a professor in Equality- and Diversity Issues.
In another scientific publication named "Sex and Change: continuity and normality in relatives relations to transsexuals" the researcher initially states that
"The categorization of people into two kinds of subjects, men and women, as well as the notion that gender is natural and lifelong, are predominant ideas in contemporary society".
The feminist conclusion: people do not consist of two biologically different categories; they are categorized by existing norms into men and women. This was a PhD thesis at the University of Stockholm, which is like all other universities in Sweden: funded by the state to serve the latter.
The state wants this kind of research for one purpose only: to crank out "evidence" that proves that there are no differences between men and women biologically. They say that the very concept of sex is completely made up by old cultural and social evil conservative norms, which have sole purpose of suppressing all women in society.
Once the "science is in place, these norms must be crushed without hesitation. There is no way the "homophobes" and "xenophobes" can oppose them.
Sweden's racial biology of the 1920s and the 21st century's science of gender are strikingly similar. Both institution were founded by state to prove a scientific basis for their version of political correctness. Both were used to legitimize an extreme; one wanting to prove all differences and the other wanted to prove that there were no differences.
And I have disturbing fear that the science of gender will meet the same terrible destiny as racial biology. I just don't know how.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Feminism has changed. There are many different versions of feminism. A former President of NOW used to support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
Current feminism does not support parental rights or gender equity for all people. Current feminists support government power and arbitrarily high child support. Current feminists are not focused on the best interests of children to the love and support of two parents.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Michael H Says:
[“Current feminism does not support parental rights or gender equity for all people. Current feminists support government power and arbitrarily high child support. Current feminists are not focused on the best interests of children to the love and support of two parents.”]
That’s it in a nutshell.
A CBS news poll claims 24% of men say the term feminist is an “insult” and 17% of women say the same.
When 1 in 4 men, and 1 in 5 women, say the term feminist is an “insult”, I think it sends a message to all “reasonable people” that there is something very wrong with feminist thinking.
In my opinion, they’re a self-serving “hate group” by their very definition. They are promoting blatant discrimination in favor of women, at everyone else’s expense. We are even being forced to pay for this with our own taxes.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
AP:
You make too much sense to those of us with little hair, and that being gray. It's awfully tough convincing young men in the midst of this persecution that it is pointless and counterproductive to blame wives, women, and feminists in general. This is what the shysters of family law feed on. We don't agree on every "quark" of minutae, but I think that we each understand, in a general way, where the other is coming from. Your tactic of anonymity is valid, as is your assertion of legal action, at least as valid as my identifying myself. I do have one little point to clarify with you about Glenn:
"My thesis to you is that you will need to shed this feminist vs. MRA sideshow if you want to dramatically grow your website into what is really needed -- that is an editorial vehicle which unifies the genders against a family murdering and plundering court system which has taken hold in America." You are right, of course, but maybe Glenn appreciates exactly how criminal, and desperate, this system truly is. I think that he is doing all that he can as an openly identifiable public figure. When the time is right, and circumstances justify it, we may all switch these roles of open and anonymous!
January 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
roy Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
(Bernie M. ) --"You and your 9 year old child are in a plane. It rapidly decompresses and the oxygen masks drop. Who do you put the mask on first you or your child?"
This is a silly question about believing in birth and death.
So, I would ask you --
"You have been chased by a tiger and have succeeded in escaping its jaws by launching yourself over a cliff and now you are clingling onto a few fragile branches and you are looking up into the tiger's eyes. The tiger has your branch in its teeth..."
Do you let the tiger rescue you, or do you let go?
(And, no ... Jesus is not behind the tiger....)
= = =
You first . . .
Silly? Then why is it still unanswered?
b
January 12th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Anyway the answer is to put the mask on yourself first . . .
b
January 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
There are so many posts here, I think I'm responding just for my own amusement.
Paul:
For your information, a survivor of the Nazi death camps did receive validation by an SS Officer, publicly, at Auschwitz. Her name is Eva Mozes Kor, his name was Dr. Hans Munch, respectively. This was called the NIZKOR Project, and Dr. Munch signed The Auschwitz Declaration on January 27, 1995 - the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Dr. Munch was the only SS Officer acquitted for his WWII crimes ~ he not only murdered the Jews and witnessed their deaths by other SS officers, but saved them as well. It was those he saved that also testified in his defense during the trials of Poland in 1946.
I don't think "gleeful" is the term I would use to describe how Eva felt even meeting Dr. Munch, however, she was moved by his humility. Did this acknowledgement "fix" the problem? Maybe not, but Eva received something that she could share with all survivors, whether they forgave Dr. Munch or not. In this case, the acknowledgement did serve to tell the world of the atrocities, in hopes that no one would forget, and therefore "never again."
Your wife seemed to have done her best to ackowledge and validate you, however, you cannot hold one woman responsible for all the discrimination that grew from the women's rights movement. You seem eager to punish her with blame despite her attempts to understand you. You must accept that she is limited and cannot meet all of your needs in this way, otherwise you will be sorely disappointed. Women cannot possibly know what it is to be a man, just the same as any one person not being able to come close to comprehending the experiences of a holocaust survivor - unless you are one.
You do well intellectualizing the issue, but seem relentless in holding your wife responsible for how you feel.
Don't want a history lesson? Then stop such atrocious comparisons.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
@Delaney
Well said and heard but the comparison that I make is still valid. What you seem to miss is the entire POINT. If you notice in your own post, you point out "but saved them as well. It was those he saved that also testified in his defense during the trials of Poland in 1946." Notice the efforts to change and undo what he (Dr. Munch) has caused? This is what I am expecting from my wife. The same efforts that this one time nazi made to undo what he has done and/or has allowed to happen!
You apparently also need some remedial reading comprehension classes. If you notice in my original post where I state "gleeful appreciation" (note: gleeful is not a term I used to describe Eva) I am comparing the sentiment that is being expressed by Glenn to my wife. And any feelings that Eva may have had at the time of meeting Dr. Munch are unknown to you, unless of course you have met and spoken to her about this issue? Please read, prior to posting my alleged expressed feelings. They are clearly stated if you actually read my post.
You state my wifes "attempts to understand you [me]." What exactly do you know of my wifes attempts Delaney? Let me answer that for you. NOTHING! Do not pretend to understand and do not pretend to know. You do not! They were never expressed in any way by any one. neither me nor my wife.
The comparison of Modern Contemporary Feminism, to 1940 Germany is by no means an atrocious comparison, it is one that seems to have gotten your attention. Hasn't it Delaney?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Oh yes, want a Reading Comprehension lesson Delaney? Then stop posting prior to comprehending!
And you know what, I'd love a history lesson, I'm actually quite well versed in such information. Lets argue facts. But they must be facts Delaney, not feelings or your personal interpretation of what it "really" means.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Paul, you're right. I perceived Hannah's attempts to understand you by her indicating she had been reading Glenn's site, and then her writing and asking for his help (which I often do). I don't know what she has or hasn't done.
I have met Eva, strangely enough, two years to this date in 2005 in Kokomo, Indiana at the
"Dare To Dream: A Cultural Celebration" expo. Everyone had the opportunity to speak individually with her. She spoke of not wanting to travel to Germany to meet Dr. Munch. She also spoke of the criticism she received by other survivors because of the forgiveness she offered Dr. Mengele (she was a twin) - survivors who felt she was speaking for them. My mother and two neices met Eva over the summer - they traveled to Terre Haute, Indiana to visit her CANDLES museum (rebuilt after an arsonist burned it down).
I'm not perfect and I don't always "get it" but that does not lower my worth nor my IQ. Defending myself further would likely only inspire more insults thrown at me - I have obviously insulted you and I do apologize. I'm not looking to make myself a target. I genuinely try to understand the human condition despite my inherent bias because of my gender.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Well said Delaney, kudos.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
@Delaney
Thank you for your reply and a better understanding of your position. I do sit here impressed that you in fact have met Eva. It must have been very interesting conversation, to say the least. Yes, I did perceive your closing statement of "Don't want a history lesson? Then stop such atrocious comparisons" as an insult and I believe that if you read it from my perspective you will see it as one as well. Your apology is happily accepted. I responded in kind to my perception of your attack and if I have insulted in the process then I too offer an apology.
Delaney, let me ask. Do you really believe that you in fact have a true inherent bias due to your gender? My guess is that you do not. Your most recent words seem reasonable and fair leading me to believe that you fail to give yourself proper credit.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Meeting Eva was a very humbling experience. She survived the most horrific event in history. She is a gracious woman, and has somehow found a way to cope with the unimaginable. It really was an honor to meet her personally.
I spent two hours reading through all the posts on this thread, and what I noticed was that most of the gentleman here perceive the holocaust from a more political and economical view, if I am understanding correctly. My perception of the holocaust is more focused on what humans experienced at the hands of other humans. The psychology of the perpetrators, and the victimized, goes beyond anything I could personally imagine. And that which is incomprehensible tends to be frightening. Therefore, when I read those comparisons, it's hard to understand. However, I believe I have been taking it out of context. Pogroms against Jews have been occuring since the 2nd century CE, and the violence is not just against adults. So, when someone compares the systematic discrimination of men to that of the holocaust (a very violent, murderous act) I'm not making that connection. I know I'm being redundant, but for the sake of clarification, I find it hard to compare discrimination to violent murder/genocide, even though I know the former has and can precede the latter. Maybe that's part of what I'm missing.
I have read a lot of Baskerville and other articles on the FathersForLife site, and there again is the same focus on the economics of male discrimination - a lot of what Anonymous Pamphleteer writes about. A lot of his particular posts are over my head, but I have re-read his posts and I think I am beginning to grasp the concept. It's just a language that I don't yet have and a way of thinking that takes some time for me to process.
I do believe I have an innate bias because of my gender, which is what I meant by using the term "inherent." From a psychological standpoint, because I process information with a "female brain" then some bias will ultimately occur. Everyone has bias towards or against something - that simply occurs naturally, in my opinion. I don't I feel confined by a "female brain" and social learning, however, and have proven to myself that I can change when necessary in order to expand my understanding. All of you gentleman (and my husband included) are teaching me different ways of seeing the world, and thus exanding my understanding and vocabulary. I doubt that it will improve my math skills, though. No bother - I'm working on a second Master's anyway!
January 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I am a mix of Polish Catholic and German Jew (The result is a Methodist) and proud of both. I find that the analogy of feminist to Nazi is quite appropriate. In both cases the Herrenvolk ( Master People ) wish to subdue and exploit the Üntermensch ( Sub-human, lit. "Below Man" notice the word mensch=MAN ) Ever see two women in a fight? It is a no-holds-barred/take-no-prisoners/drop-the-bomb-on-Luxembourg/gut-the-vanquished catfight. No sense of the "Law of War" or chivalry at all as opposed to male tradition. The same applies to the feminist-supremacist idea of "equality". Hopefully like the Nazis did, the feminist version of Nuremberg is coming and ONLY when these feminist-supremacists are standing on the gallows trap door blubbering as the noose is draped around their neck and then the trap door is sprung and they dangle, will there finally be a chance of justice and equality for all!