Woman Poisons Husband in Plot to Steal His Mom's Money, Is Convicted, and Her Husband Says...
May 18th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families...she needs help. Standing on the court steps he said:
"I think she needs some serious help and I hope she gets it."
I think men should be chivalrous and protective of women to a point, but it seems like whenever a woman does something horrible like this to a man, he makes excuses for her and is such a goddamned lemming that I wonder why I bother being a men's advocate. This guy isn't as bad as some, but the "she tried to kill me, let's try to understand how she feels" stuff is rather weak.
According to the BBC's Woman Who Poisoned Husband Jailed (5/9/08):
"A conwoman who tried to poison her husband with rat killer and anti-depressant tablets has been jailed by a judge at York Crown Court.
"Heather Mook, 58, of Heslington Road, York, will be detained for at least five years as a result of the judge giving her an indeterminate sentence.
"Mook gave her fourth husband, John, the poison to confuse him as she fleeced his mother out of £43,000.
"The judge said she was being jailed for the protection of the public.
"The court heard that as part of her ploy to confuse her husband she mixed rat poison with his spaghetti as she set about stealing his mother's life savings, money earmarked for her care."
The full article can be seen here. Thanks to Malcolm, a reader, for sending it.
| [Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.] |
"));
19 queries. 0.473 seconds.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Glenn, I get disheartened by men's mulish intransigence as well. We just can't bring ourselves to comprehend how little power we actually have in any area in which the interests of men and women interface. We LIKE that feminists accuse us of being all-powerful -- it helps us to believe that it's true. That's why feminism's most powerful weapon is hyper-chivalry: A REAL gentleman won't object when he gets walked all over by a woman and then insulted for his trouble. He'll "take it like man" and, like a pathetic puppy, hope that this will make him likeable enough to get sex.
It doesn't make him likeable. It makes him weak, pathetic, and most unappealing.
American men have allowed themselves, as "true gentlemen," to become pathetic weaklings in the face of feminism's unrelenting attack on everything masculine. Why should women feel anything but contempt for people who are too cowed to defend themselves, or too stupid and disinterested to even realize they are under attack?
Oh, well. I'll keep fighting for my own self-respect, and for the benefit of my sons and daughter, and for the grandchildren I might have some day. I hope you keep fighting, too.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Glenn said:
"I think men should be chivalrous and protective of women to a point,"
As an equity-feminist and a masculist; I also think that the opposite is true: women should be chivalrous and protective of men to a point. After all, it is men who are treated as MUCH more disposable in almost all walks of life than females. Men need protection too and it is macho to say otherwise. As Wendy McElroy says: "Real women don't need big brother."
I envision a new chivalry where men and women are not only chivalrous and protective of each other, but also towards members of the same sex. After all, men are usually the opposite of chivalrous towards each other!
Equity-feminism has taught us for decades that women can be strong, dominant, and have a place in the work-place. Likewise, masculism can also teach us that it is also acceptable for a man to be "weak", submissive, and have a place in the homeplace (including parenting). Of course, this also requires men to show real bravery to overcome "femiphobia" and drop their macho facade.
In general, I believe that the old-chivalry is every bit as destructive towards the well-being of men as the gender-feminist patriachal paradigm of feminism itself. The very definition of chivalry implies the preferential treatment of women and "ladies first." This implies that men should treat women as a prize worthy of protecting while men are second class citiizens expected to risk their lives and joy to make women comfortable and happy. The very term "chivalry" should be abolished unless it is treated as gender-neutral.
Chivalry should be a human issue, not a gender issue.
MXY
May 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Lemmings are small rodents, usually found in or near the Arctic, in tundra biomes. Together with the voles and muskrats, they make up the subfamily Arvicolinae (also known as Microtinae), which forms part of the largest mammal radiation by far, the superfamily Muroidea, which also includes the rats, mice, hamsters, and gerbils.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Read the story and you'll find she also poisoned her own child. Why was she not in prison for this?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
# Days of Broken Arrows Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Read the story and you'll find she also poisoned her own child. Why was she not in prison for this?
your kidding right? ask your mother, sister, wife or girlfriend for an explanation broken arrow.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Back to Seneca Falls!
MasculistXY says: "Of course, this also requires men to show real bravery to overcome "femiphobia" and drop their macho facade."
PK responds: Er, MXY, this statement is so sublimely paradoxical especially in context of what you wrote that I'm truly flabbergasted.
Let's start with how this maucho shaming ploy (I know you didn't mean it that way but hear me out) is kind of like saying: "Stop trying to act so tough and be brave!" It's like slapping a child for not smiling in front of a photographer (yes, I have seen that happen at the mall. Pretty hilarious in a sick kind of way.) It's so wonderfully messed up.
Next, it provides a ready excuse to hypocritical feminists who have blamed women's own sexism upon men. "I know lots of women willing to date down!", they claim, "But all the rich doctors we wait to ask us out find it laughable to consider becoming a househusband so clearly men must enjoy the breadwinner role!"
It's not a "burden" for men to accept submission and support from women anymore than, say, women find it a burden to accept higher paying affirmative action jobs. This is like falling off a log folks! If we don't see so many men falling off of it, it's not because men don't want to fall off of logs, it's moreso that there aren't so many logs around.
Next, I'm going to be a devil's advocate (oh, wait, nevermind, I'm just an agent of the devil) and disagree with you that equity feminism has accomplished anything so far. Let's give gender feminism credit and acknowledge it procured a whole treasure trove of goodies for women by demonizing men and it's not any accomplishment for these women to accept higher paying jobs anymore than the daughter of a pirate to open up a treasure chest. (Sorry with the analogies, but I want to get the point across vividly.) Until these women are competing on the same terms as men, with no safety net in the form of the welfare state or family court income transfers, all bets are off. If they got to the finish line without running the race, then the best we can offer them is an opportunity to start over. Back to Seneca Falls!
May 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Man, from reading all these articles on Glenn Sacks.com, I think I'm only gonna get married, If at night sleeps in the next room over. And I make all my own food.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Edited version
Man, from reading all these articles on Glenn Sacks.com,
I think I'm only gonna get married, If at night she sleeps in the next room over. And I make all my own food.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
maucho shaming ploy
Agree with PK. If this is what masculism is supposed to be, then its a merely feminism with feminine replaced with masculine. If someone has a macho facade, yes, they must drop it. But to accuse someone of having a macho facade is an insult to their honesty and masculinity. All in all the preaching is what I have a problem with, not the message. If equity-feminism has been teaching that women can just be as strong and protective as men (chivalrous) then they obviously have no proof of this in the real world. Exceptions are not the norm. And judging by the norm this statement does not hold any water. Should they try - yes, I hope. Will they try - not really, why should they?. They will try to a level where they can prove their "equality" but that is as far as it goes. At no time in future do I expect a female equality in disposability. Equality is an idealistic goal, not a practical one. It will never exist.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
PK said:
"Er, MXY, this statement is so sublimely paradoxical especially in context of what you wrote that I'm truly flabbergasted.
Let's start with how this maucho shaming ploy (I know you didn't mean it that way but hear me out) is kind of like saying: "Stop trying to act so tough and be brave!" It's like slapping a child for not smiling in front of a photographer (yes, I have seen that happen at the mall. Pretty hilarious in a sick kind of way.) It's so wonderfully messed up."
I like many of your posts PK, so please dont take any disagreement from me as anything personal. We are all basically on the same page with Glenn Sacks I presume.
Sometimes "feeling tough" is more important to a man than "being tough." For example, many men will refuse seeing a doctor despite risks to his health. This phenomena is perhaps more of an irony than a paradox. The more that men are "afraid of being afraid", this essentially gives more power to women to manipuate men into being disposable heroes unworthy of a commonwealth's clemency. While many women expect chivalry from a man, many men will refuse it from a woman even when it is given due to shame. It takes a different kind of strength to non-conform and buck tradition. While men risk feeling "emasculated," women do not risk feeling "efemilated." Even the DSM-4 acknowledges the stigma attached to femininity in men. It is a shame that women are encouraged by men and women alike to be whomever they want to be..........traditional or non-traditional....... while men are enocouraged to be neither..............the "all option woman" vs. the "no option man."
Many women play up their helplessness and many men likewise play up their stoic-ness out of fantasy role-play and mindless conformity. For example, the men's movement in itself often fails because too many of the men have a Napolean complex and want to be the leader (or "chief" as Kenneth Pangborn suggests in the new issue of NCFM's "Transitions"). When it comes to human emotion, many men are full of excuses (like Warren Farrell said "women don't hear what men don't say"). More vietnam vets died from suicide than in the war itself. Men are simply not as "tough" as we expect them to be. The fact that male disposability and chivalry even exist in the first place is further evidence to this effect.
My intent was not to shame macho men. I think all men have the right to self-actualize their natural personality archetype. However, we need to separate how men really are as opposed to how they feel they are "supposed to be." Shame and conformity help exaggerate the natural gender-differences that already exist. My intent was to help eliminate shame from men by reframing the notion of masculine non-conformity as an act of courage over weakness which might make the option more appealing.
Overall, I would say that throughout history it is the sensitive man who has received the bulk of ridicule from men and women alike for being "different". After all, terms like "sissy", "mama's boy", or "fag" are still popular terms today to induce shame in males. Few similar terms exist to shame "macho men". And women still seem to avoid girly men like the plague.
I didn't put 100% of the blame on men. In fact, I have stated multiple times on this site that I believe misandry is sustained by 3 forces: chivalry, gender-feminism, and male expectationsn of disposability. I also believe that males are about 50% to blame for our less-than-savory state of affairs.
Many masculists resent feminists' use of the patriachal-paradigm. Likewise, many equity-feminists resent masculisms' boycotting of all things feminist. This is why I try to treat feminists the way I want to be treated and meet in the middle.
As for affirmative action for women in the workplace, I don't believe in it. It is a manifestation of chivalry as far as I am concerned. Like Wendy McElroy said "Real women don't need big brother."
MXY
May 18th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Masculist says "While men risk feeling "emasculated," women do not risk feeling "efemilated." "
I think a more accurate ananology could be that while men fear being "emasculated" women fear being "immasculated". That is, women fear that they may lose the option of falling back on traditional gender roles or chivalry when they feel like it and instead will be made to live by masculine standards of personal responsibility.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
"Agree with PK. If this is what masculism is supposed to be, then its a merely feminism with feminine replaced with masculine. If someone has a macho facade, yes, they must drop it. But to accuse someone of having a macho facade is an insult to their honesty and masculinity. All in all the preaching is what I have a problem with, not the message. If equity-feminism has been teaching that women can just be as strong and protective as men (chivalrous) then they obviously have no proof of this in the real world. Exceptions are not the norm. And judging by the norm this statement does not hold any water. Should they try - yes, I hope. Will they try - not really, why should they?. They will try to a level where they can prove their "equality" but that is as far as it goes. At no time in future do I expect a female equality in disposability. Equality is an idealistic goal, not a practical one. It will never exist."
I think I am being misunderstood. Insofar that men are acting macho only because they think they are supposed to, only then should it be considered a "macho facade." Similarly, insofar that women are acting helpless only because they think they are supposed to, only then should this be considered a feminine facade.
I consider masculism to be about minimizing male disposability, chivalry, and the restrictive nature of the male gender role. I draw my masculist knowledge from folks like Herb Goldberg, Warren Farrell, Jack Kammer, David Thomas, Esther Vilar, Belfort Bax, and others. These folks are hardly PC feminists.
I believe in the freedom of males to self-actualize and be whomever they want to be. This is hardly the same thing as feminism. In fact, I am a member of NCFM, a national men's rights group that was founded on a man's ideological quest for true freedom.............including the right to be traditional (masculinity is not morally inferior to femininity).
I don't see anything wrong with being an idealist. I suppose it comes from being a young and sensitive artsy guy in an alternative band. Idealism is what gave Martin Luther King motivation. Idealism is what gave women the right to vote. Idealism established America as a country. Similarly, idealism may indeed help minimize male disposability and chivalry. Isn't this why we are here, to create a dialogue on how to build a safer and more joyful world for men?
MXY
May 18th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
"When it comes to human emotion, many men are full of excuses (like Warren Farrell said "women don't hear what men don't say")."
One of the biggest barriers to communication between the sexes is simply that women are not prepared to listen to men's opinions if they don't conform to women's existing views. Often when women say they want men to communicate, they really mean that they want the man to tell them what they want to hear. Rather than the man actually saying what he wants to say.
Blaming men for not communicating is often an easy way of shifting the blame. In fact, this is a tactic that a lot of people will use in different circumstances to shift the blame. For example, someone in the workplace might say that the problems will be solved if only others tell them about the problems when in other contexts the same person has made it clear they don't want to know about the problems.
But then, why would most women bother anyway? If you are a woman and you live in a society that values women's feelings, priorities and needs so much more than men's, then why would you bother about finding out what men are thinking or feeling? It is easier to stay within your cocooned universe.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
"he makes excuses for her and is such a goddamned lemming that I wonder why I bother being a men's advocate"
Question: how come when women who are protective of their husbands make excuses for them, like when a wife is a victim of ongoing domestic violence (or as in this case case of an attempted murder), and still defends her husband, that in those cases the wife is viewed as a victim not only of the DV but of some kind of "false consciousness" or psychological conditioning, or whatever? In other words, we do not criticize the woman in these cases..
But when the scenario is reversed, such as in this case, we do criticize the man? I don't know Glenn, I'm disappointed in your comments on this topic. This is merely another example of "blame the man no matter what." Also I'm not sure why that would make you question whether you want to be an MRA - are you saying you have some general dislike of men, in some sense?
May 18th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
"I consider masculism to be about minimizing male disposability, chivalry, and the restrictive nature of the male gender role."
I agree but I also follow the Oxford Companion to Philosophy's version, which defines the term as "The belief that men have been systematically discriminated against, and that that discrimination can be eliminated." That allows for a variety of beliefs (political, chivarly, etc.) within the basic philosophy that we should end anti-male discrimination. As "masculist" can be on the left or right, macho or soft, etc., as long as they believe men are systematically discriminated against and it should end.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Nick said:
"One of the biggest barriers to communication between the sexes is simply that women are not prepared to listen to men's opinions if they don't conform to women's existing views. Often when women say they want men to communicate, they really mean that they want the man to tell them what they want to hear. Rather than the man actually saying what he wants to say."
Great point. I think there is some truth to this indeed. A woman tends to like sensitive men................as long as they are sensitive to her needs!! lol.Perhaps men could work on being better talkers as long as women work on being better listeners. Henry Clay (the great compromiser) would be proud!
MXY
May 18th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Marc said:
"I agree but I also follow the Oxford Companion to Philosophy's version, which defines the term as "The belief that men have been systematically discriminated against, and that that discrimination can be eliminated." That allows for a variety of beliefs (political, chivarly, etc.) within the basic philosophy that we should end anti-male discrimination. As "masculist" can be on the left or right, macho or soft, etc., as long as they believe men are systematically discriminated against and it should end."
I like that definition of masculism from the Oxford companion. Very cool. It is also nice to hear that the term "masculism" is actually in published form. Perhaps someday the term will also make its way into the Webster dictionary!
MXY
May 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I think Glenn has a point in his article... Men should not bend over backwards to be understanding when women are obviously at fault.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Nick,
good comment when you said,
"One of the biggest barriers to communication between the sexes is simply that women are not prepared to listen to men's opinions if they don't conform to women's existing views. Often when women say they want men to communicate, they really mean that they want the man to tell them what they want to hear. Rather than the man actually saying what he wants to say."
Actually that points up Farrell's one major weakness, possibly a holdover from his NOW days combined with the fact that his background is in psychology. What I mean is, in "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say", Farrell clearly lays 95% of the responsibility at the feet of men - what he seems to focus on is "men need to start coming forward". But men have been coming forward - just not in the way Farrell would prefer, i.e. in a completely touchy-feely manner. The fact is that the responsibility lies mainly with women - they must start listening (note that I said "listening", not "show a willingness to listen" or "show that they're listening" or "use better listening skills" or some such thing. That is not just word play - it's an important distinction, lying at the very root of the issue. But Farrell fails here too, as he prefers to give us the psychologist's version).
May 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Great comments fellows, Reading these are the highlights of my evenings.
Chivalry is protecting women/children.
"Misplaced chivalry", is chivalry on steroids, to the degree that it is oppressing men/fathers/boys.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Marc Rudov is correct; men are weak as hell! They'll do anything for women, even if a specific woman tries to kill a specific man. Come on, men; be strong!
That woman knew what she was doing. She deserves to be jailed.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
A friend recently returned from a 3 month work trip in China and told me a good story. The topic was marital relations and shared decision making. The Chinese host explained that when a husband and a wife agree on a topic they select the man's opinion. When the husband and wife disagree they go with the wife's opinion.
I guess its a universal condition!
May 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Simply astonishing.
Blame men, no matter what the situation.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
As UK-based researchers have overwhelmingly proved, clinical psychopathy is a hereditary, neurological condition. People like this woman are hardwired, and do not respond to treatment, prison or anything else.
Most typically when female psychopaths engage horiffic misdeeds towards others, they do so for money motives. Like a certain woman in the U.S. who shot her husband in the back had been caught by him -- he discovered that she had been conning banks.
Most psychopaths never commit murder, but the do take advantage of and ruin many peoples' lives.
In America, female psychopaths are clearly exploiting the family courts' willingness to economically gut men based on any lies a woman wished to put forth. And of course to get there she had to do lots of lying to her target male victim to get him to marry or otherwise be involved with her in the first place.
Many American men who have had the worst experiences with women and family court have, in fact, been dealing with female psychopaths. Throw in the borderline females (BPD), bipolar IIs, clinical depressives and disthymics and you have a dream population for setting up endless opportuniries for greedy lawyers, "psychologists" and power-tripping
judges.
Mentally and morally ill women are the cornerstone of America's divorce industry.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Glenn, I think you have missed a great opportunity here.
This crime, at its core, was a case of domestic violence. As such, it was a great opportunity to discuss the differences between acts of DV committed by men and those committed by women. As you yourself, Glenn, have pointed out over and over... men and women commit DV at roughly equal rates, but men get all of the blame because they are so much more direct about it -- while women often do their acts DV through devious means such as poison and whatnot.
Another point that needed to be driven home here (but was not) is the complicity of the media. Had the genders been reversed, the media would have been quick to point out that this was a case of attempted "domestic violence homicide" (a new category of murder, at least in my state). Where is that language in this media account?
It's important for us all to stay on-message if we hope to be heard. I don't think that impugning the male victim for his failure to condemn the perpetrator serves that interest. It would have been much better to use this instance to show that men are also victims of domestic violence and to illustrate how the courts and the media treat female perps differently than men. That didn't happen in this blog post, Glenn... and I think that was a misstep.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
AnonymousPampleteer,
what about bipolar I?
May 18th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I let women take care of their own problems. Period. No chivalry from me at all. I could care less what any woman thinks, apart from my mother. I treat everyone with the same amount of respect - man or woman - if they deserve it. No one gets special treatment.
if you act like a eunuch, you will be treated like a eunuch. And you will deserve it.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
What was the guy supposed to do? Stand there and rant and rave about how the sentence wasn't long enough and express his hopes that she rots and burns in hell?
He wasn't apologizing for her actions or deeds. He was merely stating a fact: she need help.
The man is refusing to see himself as a victim. Very healthy approach to what has happened.
What would you have said if you were in his shoes?
Doc
May 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Metalman said:
"I let women take care of their own problems. Period. No chivalry from me at all. I could care less what any woman thinks, apart from my mother. I treat everyone with the same amount of respect - man or woman - if they deserve it. No one gets special treatment."
Good post metalman. I agree.
MXY
May 19th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Norman,
Re: Warren Farrell. You are right that many of his books, like Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, implicitly blame men for not communicating. But they ignore the fact that women too often don't want to listen.
But the only reason Farrell does this (I suspect) is that he has to be seen to be blaming both sexes in order to keep his audience and get published. If he wrote books blaming women solely, he probably would no longer get published or booked to speak to various groups. He would become more marginalised and denounced as an extremist.
I agree also that many men have been trying to challenge the status quo for some time, but whenever they do they tend to get shouted down. The problem is that women basically own the debate and even the language on these issues. If you challenge the existing order, they can simply throw all the usual cliches at you 'Ah, you're against equality then'. 'You want all women to go back to being tied to the kitchen sink'. It's hard to get out a more complicated message when the debate is dominated by this simplistic slogan-chanting.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Doc , you say,
"The man is refusing to see himself as a victim. Very healthy approach to what has happened"
Is there some way we can get women to use the same approach?
May 19th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Norman Says: Is there some way we can get women to use the same approach?
Doc Says: One way is to lead by example.
Now, basically the same question back at you: Is there some way wse can get everyone in the MRM to use the same approach?
You live in a society and an era that encourages people to be victims. When someone refuses to see himself as a victim, he gets skewered by almost everyone here. He is accused of having sympathy for his attacker.
The feminists didn't teach the world to see themselves as victims. Perhaps they capitalized on it, in the same exact way that the MRM is now trying to do. In reality though, one can be a victim only if they allow themselves to be a victim.
In a simple example: I smoke. When I get cancer, am I a victim of the tobacco companies? No - I made a conscious decision to smoke, and to continue to smoke.
In another example: The Duke Rape case: Are those boys victims? In one sense of the word they were. But, in another sense of the word, they put themselves in a position to where they could become victims. It is kind of like them all getting on a bus with a driver that they know has been drinking heavily for the last 5 hours. If he crashes the bus, are they victims of a drunk driver?
This is not to marginalize what the stripper did. What she did is also unconscionable. But of course, she can claim that she is a victim of a drug dealer and an abusive father.
So, the real answer to your question is that everyone - male and female alike - has to break the "victim hood" cycle.
Doc
May 19th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Someone’s idiot husband said...
"I think she needs some serious help and I hope she gets it."
That’s what Katherine Knight’s de-facto said. Then she killed him, cooked him and tried to feed him to his children- after that he wasn’t saying much of anything, what with being dead and all.
Doc said (you’re not married are you Doc? Just kidding.)...
“What was the guy supposed to do? Stand there and rant and rave about how the sentence wasn't long enough and express his hopes that she rots and burns in hell?”
Yes.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:38 am
MichaelClaymore: What does raving and ranting accomplish?
He has already come to terms with what happened.
What you seem to be saying is that he has obviously been brainwashed by those damned meddlesome Christians because he can actually forgive someone for what they have done. Obviously he is a weak minded fool. (Sarcasm intended)
Doc
May 19th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Doc,
The MRM is not about men trying to "capitalize on being victims". It there's one big impression out there about the MRM that's wrong, it is that one. What purpose would it serve to even try and do so? Women already have victim status locked up. That impression is about as valid as the one about hugging trees.
As far as this particular case, some people are going to blame the man no matter what he does, or no matter what he doesn't do, and no matter from which angle this thing is viewed, so I'm not really motivated to argue about it any more. At this point I feel sorry for the guy, if only by virtue of the attack he's undergone on this board - I hope he isn't reading these comments.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Doc said...
“MichaelClaymore: What does raving and ranting accomplish?”
Well, for one thing, it lets society know that such behavior is wrong and should not be minimized just because the perpetrator is female.
“What you seem to be saying is that he has obviously been brainwashed by those damned meddlesome Christians because he can actually forgive someone for what they have done.”
I can't for the life of me remember mentioning Christians, and as for forgiveness, how many “deadbeat dads” did you forgive during your career?
“Obviously he is a weak minded fool. (Sarcasm intended)”
Yes, yes, he is.
“When someone refuses to see himself as a victim, he gets skewered by almost everyone here. He is accused of having sympathy for his attacker.”
No, it’s not because he doesn’t see himself as a victim ( by the way, where does he show us that?) but because he’s a big enough fool to be thinking about the welfare of a woman who poisoned him, poisoned a child and robbed an old woman of her savings.
“The feminists didn't teach the world to see themselves as victims.”
No, not the world- just women.”
“In reality though, one can be a victim only if they allow themselves to be a victim.”
I see, so it’s the husbands fault for having “allowed” the wife to poison him.
You then use smoking as an example while conveniently ignoring that even though you foolishly choose to smoke, this man did not choose to take the poison. Indeed, if you get cancer because of your smoking, it will be your fault, but if you get cancer because someone sneaks plutonium into your water supply that hardly constitutes “choosing to be a victim.” on your part.
“In another example: The Duke Rape case: Are those boys victims? In one sense of the word they were. But, in another sense of the word, they put themselves in a position to where they could become victims.”
I see, so the Duke boys are to blame for being at a party with a stripper- you hire a stripper, you get framed for rape, its your fault. Using this “reasoning” one could say that custodial mothers who aren’t getting paid child support are to blame because they put themselves in that position by getting married and having children. Did you ever tell any of your clients that it was their fault so you wouldnt handle their case, thereby missing out on you 20-30%, Doc? Or is the victim blaming reserved for situations where you aren’t making money?
“It is kind of like them all getting on a bus with a driver that they know has been drinking heavily for the last 5 hours.”
No it isn’t “kind of like’ that. A drunken bus driver has a very high probability of crashing, whereas most strippers have a very low probability of accusing you of rape. There was no way those boys could have known they'd hired a psycho.
“This is not to marginalize what the stripper did.”
Gee, it just sounds like it- after all if they aren’t victims, how is she a villain?
“What she did is also unconscionable.”
How very big of you.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:58 am
"But, in another sense of the word, they [the Duke guys] put themselves in a position to where they could become victims"
That's the spirit - blame the men!!
Actually that statement is true, but not for the reason you think it is. It is true because currently in our society, just about all a man has to do to get in trouble is leave his house. I used to eat out in places like Jack in the Box and McDonalds, inside the establishment, but it got to the point where there were so many kids right in front of my face, that I couldn't not look at them. Once they started bumping into me and even saying "hello" to me, that was the last straw - I now use the "to-go" window and bring the food home.
I'm paranoid, you say? You can diagnose me however you want , but at least I will not be typing these words from Sing-Sing.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Doc,
So wrong on Duke. We're not supposed to speak up about massive Prosecutorial Misconduct like there was in that case?
Using this line of reasoning I guess the Declaration of Independence is a victim document too.
" The Colonists shouldn't have earned so much money and then the taxes wouldn't have bothered them. If you have nothing to tax who cares about representation."
Its about boundaries. In social settings we need to maintain ours and respects those of others. Right now we are being trampled on. Collectively we need to enforce solid boundaries for men. Maybe if we just started with respecting the Constitution we'd be ahead of the game.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am
I am a strong advocate for people taking responsibility for their actions, and . Yourself is the only person you can take responsibility for.
I agree with the man's statement that "I think she needs some serious help".
Who doesn't?
The man's approach is admirable in saying "I hope she gets it".
Surely this is the attitude we should adopt more often towards men, instead of trying to apply the blame and shame paradigm to women.
If everybody in the world took this man's attitude, surely the world would be a much nicer place.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:24 am
There was a similar case a few weeks ago in the UK where the husband was wheelchair-bound. His problem was that he needed a carer, and if she got locked up, he would be reliant on Social Services.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:03 am
She received an indeterminate sentence. This indicates that the judge does consider her a danger and won't consider releasing her until he is convinced that she is no longer a danger. She may well be in prison for much longer than the 5 years.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Doc,
"This is not to marginalize what the stripper did. What she did is also unconscionable. But of course, she can claim that she is a victim of a drug dealer and an abusive father. "
MCA, we can all claim we are victims of this violent matriarchy!!
May 19th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Glenn Says:
"I think men should be chivalrous and protective of women to a point, but it seems like whenever a woman does something horrible like this to a man, he makes excuses for her and is such a goddamned lemming that I wonder why I bother being a men's advocate. This guy isn't as bad as some, but the "she tried to kill me, let's try to understand how she feels" stuff is rather weak."
LOL Glenn, join the club.
In many cases some of my biggest opponents when it comes to spreading awareness about men's issues are men (heck even the husband sometimes give me a run for my money--he thinks I spend waaay too much time on your website), and I find myself thinking why the hell do I bother when they don't even care about their own well-being? Really, why should I care? Then I look at my kids and I keep on working.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I find myself thinking why the hell do I bother when they don't even care about their own well-being?
Caring about your well-being and preparing for disposability don't usually go together.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
"I think men should be chivalrous and protective of women to a point..."
I don't. Equality means that you get no special treatment.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
MXY, I get what you're saying and I agree. In fact I agree with all three of you.
And even though you are much more eloquent and better at expressing yourself that I ever could, in a sentence what I think you're trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that men who are sensitive and in tune with their feminity as a natural part of who they are should not be made to feel like they are doing something wrong. It's like forcing a gay guy to be straight. Or forcing a left-handed kid to write with his right hand.
You can disagree with people being gay, or men that are efeminate or whatever, but people shouldn't have to live their lives on anyone else's premise but their own. In fact, I know a number of gay men who believe their lifestyle is a sin, but they still engage in relationships with other men because that is what feels most natural to them. Others have told me that if they can't succumb to their urges and be right with God, they'd rather stay celibate than sleep with a woman. That tells me a lot ... that these guys wouldn't be putting themselves through this if they were in doubt as to who they are.
The same is true for left-handed people ... My husband once told me that when he was a kid his sunday school teacher would try and force him to write with his right hand because she believed those who wrote with their left hand were spawns of the devil.
My point is that if a guy is naturally inclined to be more sensitive than some men, more nurturing and domestic, he should not be made to feel as less of a man because it. Afterall to make his life easier, if he could wouldn't he be the macho guy that is the ideal, wouldn't the gay would be the straight guy etc?
In essence I think that is what MXY is saying and it's true. Though, MXY, I also think that women are just as guilty of shaming these men as other men are.
Another dilemma is that you don't want the opposite to also happen, where natural alpha males are made to feel
like something is wrong with them. This is what happens in Scandinavia a lot. People actually cheer against the tough guy ... and portray him as a barbarian. I find it just as offensive because not all alpha males are evil wife beaters and the like.
Some people are just born with a dominant streak, just like some are born with a submissive streak and it is a phenomenon that is relevant to men and women in both respects, but for eons the submissive streak in men has been frowned upon while women got to pick, choose and refuse between the two (at least in the last 40 or so years).
MXY Says:
"Overall, I would say that throughout history it is the sensitive man who has received the bulk of ridicule from men and women alike for being "different". After all, terms like "sissy", "mama's boy", or "fag" are still popular terms today to induce shame in males. Few similar terms exist to shame "macho men". And women still seem to avoid girly men like the plague."
Well, MXY, as I said above I think you should definitely move to Scandinavia. There any guy who even remotely tries to be a "tough" guy, a "macho" guy .... is shamed ... seriously, I kid you not. The society just doesn't accept machoness in men, just women :-)
Scandinavia can then be described as the sensitive guy's paradise, as far as I see it.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Doc:
You really need to decide who's side you're on.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
This article prompts me to write a letter to all the young, un-married men here:
Young men,
Join the Ghost Nation. Forget marriage and relationships with Western women. Work as much or as little as you want. Protect your assets and your income by not putting them at risk in the first place through cohabitation or marriage. Protect yourself from false DV claims by NEVER cohabitating with a woman. Avoid false rape claims by avoiding casual sex. Protect your civil rights by never putting yourself in a situation where you may be stripped of them. Start a small, private business and DO NOT hire women. Hang out with your friends whenever you want. Travel, see the world. Pursue your hobbies and interests. Live your own life the way YOU want to live it.
Don’t listen to women when they accuse you of being an emotional cripple for not wanting to be in a relationship. That’s just their way of shaming you into the position of taking care of them – paying their bills, listening to their crap, and putting up with their emotional manipulation. They all say the same thing. Tell them to go watch Oprah and Dr. Phil, because we’re not buying it!
Don’t listen to the religious nuts and moralists who tell you that you have a ‘responsibility’ to have children. Screw that! Go thump your bible somewhere else!
Don’t listen to the people who try to shame you or make you feel guilty for not having children yourself. Too bad if they’re tired, stressed out or miserable. That’s THEIR choice. Go complain to someone who wants to hear it!
Don’t listen to pseudo-intellectuals who tell you there is no way to avoid your ‘biological urge’ to have sex and/or procreate. We are NOT animals. We can control our natures and our desires.
_____________________________________
It's time to go our own way. M G T O W!!
_____________________________________
May 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Metalman -
You haven't figured out Doc's side yet?
He's either the biggest flamer this side of Tiananmen Square or he's very firmly in the 'Them' camp.
After making a career out of gouging 20-30% from 'deadbeat' Dads and their ex-partners and then buggering off to China (good luck to them), he has yet to make a positive statement about the rights of fathers (and/or men in general) - or at least I've yet to read one on this site. For a long time I assumed he was a woman posing as a man.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Hello Davina and thanks for the very thoughtful reply at 10:13. It was very appreciated. You definitely sell your writing skills short::)
I definitely have more of an artist personality. I am very much into acting, music, writing, science, and existential philosophy. This perhaps explain why I value non-conformity so much. I guess I listen to too much punk rock lol. Most of my friends are alternative artsy types as well. I also have mental illness in my family, and I am very much concerned about men's mental health (especially considering the crazy high suicide rate). In fact, I made my emphasis in men's psychology (division 51) when I obtained my masters in psychology.
I have also always been fascinated by Warren Farrell's ideas concerning the "stage 2 society" and equal right to life amendment as well (see "Myth of Male Power"). Herb Goldberg's masterpice "Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Male Privilege" is also one of my favorite books on male self-exploration.
You are right. No man should be made to feel ashamed of his natural disposition. Masculinity and femininity are equally good/bad.
Scandinavia, eh?..................now if only I could overcome my flying phobia lol.
MXY
May 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Metalman said:
"It's time to go our own way. M G T O W!!"
I think this stands for "men going their own way." Correct me if I am wrong. I don't know much about this "movement," but it sounds very interesting. If anyone knows a specific website for this, feel free to post it.
MXY
May 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Good Heavens, MXY, I would never take something personally if you're making a generalization or philosophical point. I welcome this thoughtful provocative comment:
"Sometimes "feeling tough" is more important to a man than "being tough." For example, many men will refuse seeing a doctor despite risks to his health. This phenomena is perhaps more of an irony than a paradox. The more that men are "afraid of being afraid", this essentially gives more power to women to manipuate men into being disposable heroes unworthy of a commonwealth's clemency. While many women expect chivalry from a man, many men will refuse it from a woman even when it is given due to shame. It takes a different kind of strength to non-conform and buck tradition. While men risk feeling "emasculated," women do not risk feeling "efemilated." Even the DSM-4 acknowledges the stigma attached to femininity in men. It is a shame that women are encouraged by men and women alike to be whomever they want to be..........traditional or non-traditional....... while men are enocouraged to be neither..............the "all option woman" vs. the "no option man.""
Indeed! It's strange isn't it to hear feminists here come up with excuses about how "society" expects them to marry wealthy men but at the same time brag that they can do whatever they like with their body and walk around in public dressed in a manner that would shock Vanity Fair? It's a massive snow job.
I don't mean to be condescending, but I think most people here understand the shaming technique of "man up" and how that's used to play on men's fears of being seen as fearful. That's why I used a Victor/Victoria quote before about the cute story of a women pretending to be a gay man pretending to be a woman.
King Marchand: If you were a man, I'd knock your block off.
Victoria: And prove that *you're* a man?
King Marchand: That's a woman's argument.
I would explore your point further and state that women's submissiveness (and all submissiveness for that matter) is dependent upon a social and emotional contract between the protector and protected. Men have legitimate fears about being emasculated by accepting chivalry from women consequently most men are suspicious of it. This is a law of nature and logic that men can change. You can't make someone protect you.
And that observation, MXY, is the key to striking fear into the hearts of feminists and mainstream entitlement queens: The dance only continues as long as men accept the paradox of providing chivalry including the ultimate chivalry of pretending women are equal. It's like the knight in shining armor slaying the dragon, releasing the helpless maiden, and then tying himself up and letting her torture him for oppressing her (and then apologizing when she has problems even doing that.) It's such a modern comedy of absurdity. Hmmm, maybe I should write a play...
I ask you to please clarify your claim that the MRM fails because of Napolean complexes even as men are driven by conformity. Do you see the contradiction there? I understand that various men can be driven by one or the other and that's probably why, as a society, men still fall in line. It's easier to pay your taxes and shut up and pray for luck than to fight the system or to milk it and try to rise to the top. But... at the same time, that doesn't mean that the system has to own their soul either. There's a reason why the 1st amendment is so important in the states and non-existant nearly everywhere else: Once a critical mass of men decide to stop believing in some popular fiction that's the moment the whole things collapses. No big federal programs required.
You wrote: "I think all men have the right to self-actualize their natural personality archetype." Now that is quite a wordy, philosophical statement and I think I understand it. That said, though, isn't liberation for men (and for really) mean that we should be able to abandon the notion of even egalitarianism? If most women want to be helpless damsels in distress (and most still are) and men enjoy chivalry then don't we need to accept their wishes and have society work around THAT rather than an artificial notion of egalitarianism? As Sun Tsu put it: If you're building a fortress, use the square rocks. If loading a cannon, using the round ones. Don't square the round rocks and vice-versa if you don't need to. Leadership is set by example, MXY, and we need to put our beliefs out there for others to consider changing their own.
About girly men being rediculed: It's ironic that at the turn of the 19th century, just before feminism was taking off, we had a society that actually was becoming more enlightened and open minded and this was when socialism still had an appeal as a working class men's movement and men could consider a world that wasn't dog-eat-dog. Feminists, good or bad, did NOTHING to improve the situation of working men and ultimately women. It was a goodie grab plain and simple and ultimately degenerated society into the warped notion of chivalry we have today where self-proclaimed heroes beat up helpless men and wealthy princesses complain about how rotten they have it.
Look at turn-of-the-century men such as Thomas Edison, Einstein, Tesla, and previously Beethoven. All a bunch of sissy, weirdo geeks that would have gotten beaten up by the jocks at Columbine. Back then, they got the recognition they deserved and somewhat early. Go to an opera house today and try to count the number of people there under 50. In Italy, they're like Rock Concerts.
I don't like your percentage claim because it's a bit misleading. Feminism is a PRODUCT of chivalry and male disposability is a product of that. I know that's an oversimplification but consider that if chivalry is eliminated then feminism drops out immediately and ultimately misandry as well. They all build upon one another. I don't view this as a middle-left-right paradigm. I don't resent feminists claiming that the patriarchy runs everything. They RELY upon it and pointing this out to them takes all the wind out of their sails. At the same time, while equality and egalitarian sound nice, it's still a utopia that ignores human realities. You face an uphill battle trying to get feminists and male disposability chivalrists to change their minds.
Finally, about AA: The women who desired true equality to begin with never needed feminism and the ones that benefitted from feminism's appeals to chivalrous patronage never were equal either. So I fail to see what feminism has done for anyone beyond helping to accelerate some other seperate cultural changes people wanted (such as the sexual revolution.)
May 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I have a dream! (for something different, please!)
MXY writes: "I don't see anything wrong with being an idealist. I suppose it comes from being a young and sensitive artsy guy in an alternative band. Idealism is what gave Martin Luther King motivation. Idealism is what gave women the right to vote. Idealism established America as a country. Similarly, idealism may indeed help minimize male disposability and chivalry. Isn't this why we are here, to create a dialogue on how to build a safer and more joyful world for men?"
PK responds: I'm not picking on you, MXY, but if there's a rule to prohibit overused Nazi analogies on Glenn's blog, then I think it would also be invaluable to refer to some OTHER civil rights leader than MLK. There are other civil rights leaders, aren't there?
When I was growing up, a similar thing went on with the founding fathers with the legend of George Washington not telling a lie about cutting down a cherry tree. It's now discredited as a fable. Popular culture tends to oversimplify heroes to the point that sometimes the heroes themselves would be disgusted with their portrayals if they were around.
Anyways, MXY, I'm a bit confused about how you're going to make traditional masculism work in combination with egalitarianism. I don't attribute misandry to radical feminism or even modern leftist gender/racial populist scapegoating. It appears to be a simple function of women trying to have their cake and eat it too and blaming men. If you can figure out a way for women to enjoy being protected by the patriarchy while still being equal to it, please enlighten us. They've tried to crack that one since the beginning...
May 19th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
" I think all men have the right to self-actualize their natural personality archetype."
I think this sentence sounds about as masculine as ordering a decafinated caramel soy latte at Starbucks.
;-)
May 19th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
MasculistXY:
MGTOW does in fact mean Men Going Their Own Way
http://menforjustice.net/cms/
May 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Davina says: "In many cases some of my biggest opponents when it comes to spreading awareness about men's issues are men (heck even the husband sometimes give me a run for my money--he thinks I spend waaay too much time on your website), "
PK responds: Davina, let's put this into context: most people are not very deep when it comes to politics or philosophy. They have a pet set of beliefs that they either were indoctrinated with or chose during childhood out of fear or emotional comfort (usually the former) and then spend the rest of their lives voting for some guy who will advance their agenda. They put more thought into watching football.
That's why I think that voting is such a huge joke. I'm not saying it's worthless, but some people act as if the world is hinging on them showing up at the polls. Feminists did get one thing right: The personal is the political. How we act and live in our personal lives sets an example that other people follow.
Davina, if your husband truly doesn't care about his own well being, then how did he survive up until now? I mean, he looks both ways before he crosses the street, yes? Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that he ONLY cares about his own individual well being and conforms with popular culture as a survival mechanism. Ayn Rand saw the world in terms of everyone being selfish. Sadly, she appears to be right if we look at most people in our culture. Even most people going around panicked over global warming are just putting on an act to get attention.
Leadership, Davina, is about taking an initiative especially when others are apathetic (otherwise, why bother?) If everyone is already addressing an issue, then leadership is unnecessary. That's why it's funny watching all these chicken littles screeching about "climate change" or racism as if nobody ever heard about these issues before. Thank heavens for brave, creative people pointing out the noses on their faces! That's equality, Davina, it's tough and most of the time people blow you off. Welcome to the world of men.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Davina says: "Well, MXY, as I said above I think you should definitely move to Scandinavia. There any guy who even remotely tries to be a "tough" guy, a "macho" guy .... is shamed ... seriously, I kid you not. The society just doesn't accept machoness in men, just women :-) Scandinavia can then be described as the sensitive guy's paradise, as far as I see it."
PK responds: Davina, please enlighten us. We have this happen in the states as well but at the same time men are shamed for NOT being breadwinners/protectors when it suits women. That's why I'm thinking a lot of men here are rejecting feminism and equality on their own: They don't see ANY positive role they can live by.
It's my understanding that despite generous welfare benefits, most scandanavian nations still have lots of men as breadwinners and women as SAH mothers similar to what the USA has (country families with SAH mothers producing lots of children that are then indoctrinated in universities to become future childless leftists. Lather rinse repeat.)
May 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Doc says: "In another example: The Duke Rape case: Are those boys victims? In one sense of the word they were. But, in another sense of the word, they put themselves in a position to where they could become victims. It is kind of like them all getting on a bus with a driver that they know has been drinking heavily for the last 5 hours. If he crashes the bus, are they victims of a drunk driver? "
PK responds: The legal answer to your question, Doc, is yes they are. Even if you were to get up in court and produce evidence that someone got on a bus after seeing the man pound away at the bar for hours they would still be victims and entitled to protection under the law in addition to financial compensation as much as an innocent waif who didn't know anything.
Your analogy is interesting because the definition of drunk driving has been obfuscated by politics. Define "drinking heavily." By legal standards, having a few glasses of beer is "heavy drinking" if he scores a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. In addition, to determine if someone is legally drunk a breathalizer or some other test needs to be administered although a field sobriety test is also sometimes considered valid.
As passengers, it's not their duty or responsibility to guage whether a bus is safe including whether the driver is drunk. Do you accompany airplane pilots on their pre-flight tests?
As Michael pointed out, your argument does blame the victim even if you claim that wasn't your motivation since feminists and leftists did use such arguments to undermine the rights of the unfairly accused students. Ironically, the reverse argument works better that that the stripper put herself in more danger, as someone practicing a sleazy craft, of being raped than law abiding boys. An unwed mother stripper of low moral character who would lie to police? Amazing!
May 19th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
James Howard on post "Doc" - "He's either the biggest flamer this side of Tiananmen Square or he's very firmly in the 'Them' camp."
My sentiments, exactly!
Doc has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated his (or her's) support for men's rights - nor even any positive beleifs regarding men and fathers.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
slwerner Says "Doc has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated his (or her's) support for men's rights"
So what? Doc is here as opposition--we allow that here, remember? Actually, we encourage it. If you disagree with Doc, either refute his arguments or don't clutter up my blog with unproductive comments.--GS
May 19th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“In another example: The Duke Rape case: Are those boys victims? In one sense of the word they were. But, in another sense of the word, they put themselves in a position to where they could become victims.”
“In another example: The Duke Rape case: Are those boys victims? In one sense of the word they were. But, in another sense of the word, they put themselves in a position to where they could become victims.”
So, Doc,
What say we try that same line of reasoning to question whether a woman who has drunk to much, and fails to take proper precautions is, in that “other sense” not really a victim of the rape she’s suffered?
Personally, I’d like to be there when you make such a suggestion to a room full of your feminist friends.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Glenn Sacks - "So what? Doc is here as opposition--we allow that here, remember? Actually, we encourage it. If you disagree with Doc, either refute his arguments or don't clutter up my blog with unproductive comments.--GS"
What? I'm not allowed to "second" the thoughts of another poster and add my voice to recommendations that "Doc's" posts always be taken with a grain of salt (or, perhaps, a block of salt)?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Doc - "So, the real answer to your question is that everyone - male and female alike - has to break the "victim hood" cycle. "
High sounding stuff, Doc. But we are dealing with a situation in which the man WAS a REAL VICTIM. He was REALLY HARMED. His stand for treatment (aka lighter punishment) for his attacker, while certainly his prerogative, should be carefully considered in light of the real danger posed by the continuing disregard towards men by our criminal justice system in the inequitable application of significantly lighter sentences given to women for crimes against men.
If a woman (of questionable sanity) were to go before the court at the sentencing of a man convicted of raping her, pleading for him to get "treatment" instead of incarceration, would you be so quick to applaud her "rejection of victimhood"?
I'd bet that Feminists would be falling all over themselves to proclaim that such a woman was a further victim of brainwashing by the Patriarchy.
Sounds to me like John Mook has likewise been the victim of some brainwashing by the emerging (if not yet fully dominant) Matriarchy.
Rather than praise his “bold” stand proclaiming himself to be no ones victim, perhaps we should be challenging him as to whether or not he believes that wives should always get treatment rather than punishment when, for instance, they actually succeed in killing their husbands. After all, I’m sure you believe the world has been made a better place because Mary Winkler got treatment rather than hard time – right?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The purpose of a troll is to clutter up a blog with unproductive comments. Some of Doc's statements are over the top and then he doesn't appear to stick around. So slwerner's observation caused a "click" moment...
May 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Sure she needs help alright. I'd run as far from her as possible.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Getting back to Glenn's rebuke of my posting - "Doc is here as opposition--we allow that here, remember? Actually, we encourage it."
Glenn, I would also add that Doc seems to like to try to "position" himself as a sort of "voice of reason and sanity" amongst dull-witted, reactionary, chaotic dim of those of us who DO believe in men's rights. If he were to declare his "opposition", rather than pretend to be seeking to temper and improve the MRM; his comments would be far more palatable to me, personally.
But, given his “stealth” approach, I fear that it would be too easy for some to be taken in by the apparent logic of his proclamations, such as this one: ”… male and female alike - has to break the "victim hood" cycle.”
Sounds like a fair and logical challenge. However, John Mook was not the victim of some perceived “emotional trauma” – he was poisoned. He IS a victim, a real victim. It’s not like Amanda Marcotte being victimized by you when you disagree with her. This guy could have died, and even now has potentially suffered permanent damage to his liver for the poisoning.
His call for treatment for his wife is NOT him breaking the cycle of victimhood, it is furthering the very real harm done to men by the belief that women are less deserving of punishment for their crimes against men.
Doc ought to be called-out on his attempts to deceive others about the true meaning of why we must speak out about this case. Other posters ought to make clear what he himself will not – that he is in opposition to the MRM – so that newcomers and casual observers are not taken in by his efforts to derail discussions.
If you wish to encourage Doc's opposition, perhaps you might also encourage his "openess" about being that "opposition".
May 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
slwerner Says "given [Doc's] “stealth” approach"
"Stealth"? He's a goddamn child support enforrcement official who writes a regular post for this blog called "The 'Child Support Official's Viewpoint'." If that's "stealth," I'm a ballerina.--GS
May 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
What do you have against ballerinas, Glenn?
May 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Glenn
"If that's "stealth," I'm a ballerina.--GS"
MCA, I'm getting visuals of Glenn in a tutu.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Glenn Sacks - "He's a goddamn child support enforrcement official who writes a regular post for this blog called "The 'Child Support Official's Viewpoint'." If that's "stealth," I'm a ballerina."
I don't recall his ever having mention his blog feature in anything of his that I've read. He certainly doesn't link to it/them in his user name. I’ve never noticed the link to his feature on this site. While I haven’t been looking for it, it certainly isn’t very obvious.
From what I've seen, he always acts like he's being the voice of reason, with only the admirable intention of setting us misguided souls straight. So, yeah, I see it as "stealth".
Perhaps I'm the only one who missed it, but I didn't realize that it was common knowledge what Doc's profession was, nor that he even had a regular feature on your blog.
My apologies for being out of “The Know”.
That’s the problem with us “newbies”. We just never seem to instantly pick up on all the ins and outs of a forum. What a pain in the a__ it must be to have us stumbling about like three blind mice.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Interesting arguments presented at 12:42pm, PK. From experience I know you can be a very engaging speaker (a good thing by the way so don't jump on me for that :-) so I'll simply say I'll consider your comments when faced with the situation again, though I don't believe the strifes of leadership as you mentioned it in the post is reserved only for men. But that discussion is for another day...
PK Says:
"Davina, please enlighten us. We have this happen in the states as well but at the same time men are shamed for NOT being breadwinners/protectors when it suits women."
I'm aware of this, but the difference is that this is not a part of the mainstream even if women in Scandinavia do engage in this behaviour. On the other hand, due mostly, I guess, to Hollywood, in America it is.
From what I understand of your standards, you'd think most Scandinavian men are severely whipped. In America, the alpha male is both villified and revered. Take for instance the appeal that firefighters have, particularly among women, because they are big and strong and brave and protective. The physical strength of men and his natural instinct to risk his life to save another (esp if the other is a woman or a child) is revered, while that same physical strength and risking taking nature can and is used against a man in court in a DV case involving a woman (and he's ulimately villified as taking advantage of this poor defenseless woman).
In Scandinavia, neither the reverence nor the villification of men in the context stated above is the norm. Firefighters or any other civil service male dominated field for example enjoy no such reverence. But neither is the "I'm only 5'2 and he's 6'2 and 203lbs, and he can slap me round like a fly ..." argument very popular (in the event of a DV case that is). To Norway's credit (can only speak for that country since that is where I lived) a woman's word is not for the most part taken as given in a serious situation where lives can be destroyed. If you as a man, even with your superior size, can build an argument that the DV was mutual or that she initiated it they are much much much much more likely to listen to you than in the US.
Back to the topic at hand .... The girls don't necessarily swoon of the fact that you're big and strong and fearless in the face of death and or a mean fire. Mainly because the society doesn't really make a big deal out of these sacrifices men make. To them its a job both a man and a woman can do even though more men do it than women. Men do not have any inherent advantages at doing these jobs better than women therefore men shouldn't be subjected to any special attention.
Indeed, if you ever hear reference to a "typical" alpha male in Norway it's usually in scorn or derision. The likelihood that many men in Scandinavia may still be sole breadwinners is never really discussed on any of the major political and or social programmes. One reason is that it is not as popular a phenomenon (an overwhelming amount of men being breadwinners) there as it is here, and two it's simply not a pressing issue in their society. In fact, it is more accepted in that country to be a working mom than a stay at home one.
For eg, when you hear about a family that is deemed today as "traditional" (as in male is sole breadwinner and Mom stays home), they usually seem compelled to justify that this model is what worked for them since it's not the politically correct or modern practise to either do so or admit to doing so. They speak of it in a way that comes across as being ashamed ... they have to go into long detail to explain why they choose to run their family the way they did. I always found that pretty funny. Isnt one of feminism's greatest victory giving women the freedom choice to do whatever they want with their lives?
So, no PK the SAH culture as we know it in the states is not as widespread in Scandinavia. Perhaps in the small rural areas but one thing you have to keep in mind, particularly about Norway, is that its a big country with few people. Most of the population live in urban cities where career and individualism are promoted.
In fact, the birth rate is plunging so fast in these countries that, according an article I read (Norwegian so can not link) in one of the major online newspapers, measures are being taken to create governmental incentives for families to have more babies. Norway alone receives about 2000 new refugees (they get about 4000 asylum seeking applications per year according to their directorate of immigration) per year and each woman on average is mother to 3 or more children. Needless to say, they are fearful that in a couple of years there'll be more burkas than blonds.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
This:
....they have to go into long detail to explain why they choose to run their family the way they did. I always found that pretty funny. Isnt one of feminism's greatest victory giving women the freedom choice to do whatever they want with their lives?
should be this:
they have to go into great detail in explaining why they choose to run their family the way they did. I always found that pretty funny. Isn't one of feminism's greatest victories giving women the freedom of choice .... to do whatever they want to do with their lives?
May 19th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Regarding my husband, I think he's like most men ... apathetic. Sure he has an interest in the numerous topics discussed here, but only a cursory one. Like most men, he probably won't do squat about the situation of men until his own arse gets burned. Sad, but true.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Ha! Hee hee!! "Stealth"! You mean like a 500 lb man in a go-kart race? A grizzly bear in an antique shop? Warren Farrell at a N.O.W. convention??
May 19th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
IRT to some debate here - I don't understand why Doc would need to take a side, as opposed to looking at a situation as his judgement and reason sees it.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Re: Duke Rape Case
PK, good posts.
After it had become clear that the accused were innocent in the Duke case, many feminists resorted to arguing that we should not feel sympathy for the accused as they were obviously of bad character in choosing to hire a stripper.
Feminists have long argued that if a woman is raped, the fact that the woman might have a history of being unchaste should not be used against her. Yet when it comes to men being falsely accused of rape, suddenly they argue that unless the man is a complete saint we ought not to care if he is falsely accused. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Norman L. Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Doc , you say,
"The man is refusing to see himself as a victim. Very healthy approach to what has happened"
Is there some way we can get women to use the same approach?
Doc Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Norman Says: Is there some way we can get women to use the same approach?
Doc Says: One way is to lead by example.
____________________________________________________________________
Doc, that is hilarious. For a long time men have been taught not to see themselves as victims. But has this altered women's behaviour? Have women said 'ah, those men are not playing the victim. So let's follow their good example.'
No. Instead, women have said 'let's milk it for all that it is worth'.
Moreover, because men are less likely to complain about gender issues people assume men have no problems. It gets used against men.
I agree that there is far too much victimism in society today, and that too many people try to find any excuse to blame others for their problems. I, for one, have little time for people who believe the world owes them everything.
But it is not fair to label people who are pursuing genuine grievances as being the same as those who are pursuing spurious or exaggerated grievances. There is a world of difference between whinging and whining that you cannot have everything you want, and fighting policies that are genuinely unfair.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Davina Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Regarding my husband, I think he's like most men ... apathetic. Sure he has an interest in the numerous topics discussed here, but only a cursory one. Like most men, he probably won't do squat about the situation of men until his own arse gets burned. Sad, but true.
___________________________________________________________
I think there are a few reasons why men are apathetic about these things.
- Most men assume that there is little chance of changing things, so it is not worth your time and effort to pursue a hopeless cause
- Most men have difficulty actually understanding or defining the problem. They may have a vague sense that something is wrong or unfair about feminist rhetoric, but they cannot properly articulate what it is. On issues like this, women and feminists basically own the debate and the dialogue. They are always the ones fighting the good fight for equality, and anyone who opposes them is obviously some selfish reactionary cretin who can therefore be dismissed forthwith.
- Some men (like myself) who understand what is wrong, realise that the current policies are unsustainable and won't last. So why bother destroying something that is inherently flawed and will fall apart sooner or later anyway?
May 20th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I don't necessarily agree with the gender connotations of this story. I think it is more a reflection of this man's personality that has him wishing she would get help.
I thought I would share a clip with you out of my own story.
I was assaulted by my ex-husband as I lay in bed at 6:30 in the morning with my then 2 1/2 year old son lying beside me.
I was hit with an open hand, I think? ( some things are still sketchy about that exact moment in time ) I was hit hard enough my nose was cracked and my face instantly puffed up.
When it came time for court and to speak to the crown attorney's I said, "He needs help, and I want him to get it or I will refuse to testify"
I had several reasons for doing so.
1) Up until that point in time, there had never been any 'violence' in our home.
2) In this instance, I had loved this person and had two children with him and still wanted to see him have a good life
3) I didn't see the point in throwing him in jail where he might become a real criminal rather than assist him in dealing with life a bit better.
4) If he was going to see his children, I wanted to know they would all be safe.
I know now that with my own case, I made the right choice. It was discovered within a year of our separation that he had a very serious thyroid problem. He still has to take medication for that and will for the rest of his life. This is in face what caused his breakdown and violent outburst.
As I have said many times before, I have now had 50/50 equal parenting for the past 8 years.
So, as I said, I think it's more of a 'personality' to want someone to get help for what we see as an illness, rather than wanting them to be punished to the full extent of the law.
Sorry Glenn, didn't want to act like the 'gender' police, just wanted to show a possible other point of view.
Sincerely;
Kris Titus
May 20th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Glenn:
"slwerner Says "given [Doc's] “stealth” approach"
"Stealth"? He's a goddamn child support enforrcement official who writes a regular post for this blog called "The 'Child Support Official's Viewpoint'." If that's "stealth," I'm a ballerina.--GS"
That's a bit harsh isn't it Glenn? Doc has been a regular commentator but NOT a regular contributer - his FIRST post was on the 9th May and you didn't post another entry until yesterday. You may have plans to ask him to contribute regularly, but it's not like he's got a long track record to date. Prior to his May 9th post I hadn't seen anything in any of his comments that detailed his career.