New Column: Poisoning Our Culture Against Men
May 21st, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Well, not exactly "new," but never before seen by the public.
In 2001 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson wrote Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. While reading about Katherine's and Paul's participation in the upcoming Third National Men’s Equality Congress July 13-14 in Washington D.C., I was reminded of a review I wrote of the book.
I wrote the review five years ago, a major paper purchased the piece but never ran it, and it has been sitting on my computer ever since. With the Men’s Equality Congress coming up, it seems like a good time to release the piece as Sacks Media Group Content. The piece is obviously rather dated, but the essence of the book still comes through, and many of the ills they pointed to 5+ years ago are, unfortunately, still with us.
Poisoning Our Culture Against Men
By Glenn Sacks
Finally someone has studied and written a book about a phenomenon which nobody speaks of but which is evident to any thinking American--our popular culture continually belittles and demonizes men. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson is a painstaking expose of how men are portrayed negatively in movies and television.
Young and Nathanson break down the depiction of men in modern TV and movies into several categories, including “Laughing at Men,” “Bypassing Men,” “Blaming Men,” “Dehumanizing Men,” and “Demonizing Men.” Shows like Home Improvement and Men Behaving Badly, for example, laugh at the main male characters and almost always portray them as being wrong and the women in their lives as almost always being right.
These shows and others, such as The Simpsons and The Golden Girls, display several of the common misandrist themes Young and Nathanson’s studies have found: Men are coarse and inferior but they can improve in spite of themselves--by accepting the advice and teaching of women, who are intrinsically wise and civilized; Men can be worthwhile and lovable, but only despite their masculinity and never because of it; Women can mock men and men can mock men but it is generally unacceptable for anyone, male or female, to mock women; When women make misandrist remarks, the audience is to laugh along with them, but when men make misogynistic remarks, the audience is to laugh at them; Women can scrutinize and criticize a man’s behavior, but men cannot scrutinize and criticize a woman’s behavior.
Some shows and movies, such as Murphy Brown, Waiting to Exhale, and How to Make an American Quilt, portray most men as useless, and encourage women to simply bypass them. Others, such as The Handmaid’s Tale and The Long Walk Home, blame men for social ills. The Long Walk, for example, is based upon the modern, utterly fanciful notion that it was only Southern white men, not Southern white women, who were racist against blacks and sought to “keep them in their place.”
Still others, such as Sleeping With the Enemy, A Kiss Before Dying, and Deceived, dehumanize and/or demonize men. In Deceived, the main female character, Adrienne, falls in love with and marries Jack, a seemingly loving and caring man. After five years of happy marriage, which includes the birth of a daughter, Adrienne discovers that Jack secretly is a murderer and a criminal. In the end, she narrowly escapes with her life. The lesson is a common one--no matter how good even the best of men may seem to be, women are never safe, and men can never be trusted.
Young and Nathanson note that many modern versions of older films or folktales have altered the original plot in order to portray men negatively and women positively. In Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, for example, Beauty’s three evil sisters have been eliminated, an obnoxious male chauvinist (Gaston) has been invented, and the Beast has been turned from a kind, undeserving victim into a selfish and deservedly punished cad who can only be redeemed through a woman’s love.
In the modern remake of Cape Fear, Sam, a decent, loving husband and father in the original version (1962), is transformed into a philandering coward and a possible child molester. At the end of the new version, Sam is not united with his wife and his daughter--the two women are united and Sam is despised by both of them. This is another common theme--men can depend on women, but women can and should only depend on each other.
To further illustrate television misandry, the authors randomly selected and examined various weeks of TV Guide blurbs. During the week of January 9-15, 1999, for example, the blurbs alone indicate that viewers can expect to see a man kill his wife (twice), rape a woman, murder a child, stalk a woman (twice), murder or attempt to murder a woman (six times), discriminate against a woman, beat his wife, and murder his classmate.
Women’s advocates once taught American society the valuable lesson that the stereotypes of women that we see in television and movies will, in one form or another, be translated into our larger culture, and thus it is important that women be portrayed fairly. Unfortunately, many of them (and many of the women and men who were influenced by them) forgot their own lesson when it came to negative portrayals of men in popular culture. Young and Nathanson express hope that the many men and women who are distressed by the cultural belittling men endure can help jar our society’s memory--and its conscience.
"));
19 queries. 0.487 seconds.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Yes, definately a work that will eventually prove to be a groundbreaker (of course, I already know that it is)....I am confident. A book I picked up in my freshman year of university a number of years ago--and have used in a few papers I've written for in some of my courses (where one--evidently offended, but of course she kept it cloaked)--feminist prof labeled as "backlash literature"--even though it obviously didn't have that tone). It still is not given the recogniton it deserves. A somewhat flawed methodolgy, but that is just me being too fair and honestly critical. For the most part, the book was a mindbomb: a message of hope to me, being a young man in the 2000s--that there were people out there willing to take a stand against the repugnant abundance of confining and humilating, demeaning, and demonizing sterotypes of masculinity that were being sqoozed out by the stultifying and embarassing pop culture of my Jr high and high school years. Pop culture certainly hasn't improved much though, so I just keep looking forward to the future.
Sam Cooke once said: "A change is gonna come".
I say now, with regard to the men's and father's movements, that " A change is--gonna havta- come".
Thank you from my deepest atrium Mr. Nathanson and Ms. Young.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
I have read the book and found it to be accurate in its painstaking research. Some people would argue that it is a personal matter which compels me to write and criticize the courts, the politicians and the media and initially it was, having been a martyr of the court system in Canada and my child a victim, but it is the greater cost, the danger and the ultimate defeat of the West that has taken precedence to my modest suffering. I really fear we are on the way to perdition as a civilization. Every time a person, man or woman is treated unfairly, justice fails; every time valiant people are demeaned, civilization suffers; every time a child is taken from a parent, there is sown a seed for destruction; every time people act in self interest, the whole of society is in danger of collapse. A collapsing society is anyone's prey.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
I agree with the comment of Mr. D'Urzo. In this environment, everyone suffers. Remember, since the beginning of time, women have been denigrated, devalued and dissed as human beings, thought to be second class to men in every culture. With the passage of time, in some societies, there has been a backlash against this grossly unfair treatment of women, and now we have the sorry situation of which you write. Of course it is horrible that fathers are being kept from their children, of course it is unfair, and of course it hurts every member of the family. Think of the many men who father illegitimate children and just walk away, not wanting the responsibility. Well, the woman cannot walk away. She either bears the child and tries to find a way to raise it, gives it away for adoption and mourns it forever, or aborts (today) and suffers that forever. Meantime, it is a father's choice, but not a mother's. In this type of situation, there is going to be a great deal of consequence. We cannot look at individual situations and see a solution, ever. We have to see the big picture and understand the root cause of things before a solution can even be considered. A world controlled by evil is the reason.
The solution is to have a society submitted to God. It ain't gonna happen people, until God says enough, I will take back my planet.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
Stephan: As someone who has taught at a major university, I would like to ask your feminist professor - what's wrong with "Backlash"? Wasn't it backlash that started the feminist movement? So much for equality - women can have a movement but men can't? -
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Legalizing misandry : from public shame to systemic discrimination against men / is the actual name of the book, Glenn, and anyone else looking for it, not spreading misandry.
Geez
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Perhaps Glenn Sacks is aware of the following info, but there is no indication in the present reprint of the earlier "misandary" book review that he is . I'm referring to the new book--"Legalizing Misandry" also by Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson. There is a huge section on the custody problem as it arises in both Canada and the U. S. Amazon lists the book, which list also includes a review by myself.
The whole feminist agenda has yet in my view to be fully assimilated by the various men's groups fighting the legal battles over custody and related issues. For them, the feminists are just one though important element. For the feminists, the perspective is reversed. Custody and other legal issues are simply the whole war itself which it is waging against all heterosexual males. The law is the weapon, a move that is fundamental to anti-male dominance feminism in both the universities and among the feminist lawyers who are the shock troops in the feminist anti-male war. The theory, for what it is worth, derives from something called in American law schools and in the law journals "critical legal theory." This theory starts from the marxist notion that all law is nothing but the regulations imposed by the dominant class on the dominated classes. While inveighing against this idea, critical legal types nevertheless advocate precisely the same attitude in calling for using the law as a means of attacking and inflicting damage on heterosexual males. From this point of view, custody issues are just one front in this war. For myself, who am now in my eleventh year of investigating sexual harassment jurisprudence prefatory to some (projected) serious publication on this abomination, the custody issue takes up entirely too much space among the male fathers directly involved. That is wholly understandable, but if you're serious you're going to go after the whole feminist war effort, and that involves a much broader form of self-education.
Make no mistake about it: if feminist females look and sound like they hate males, that is because they hate males.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
Dear "Geezer"--"Legalizing Misandry" is their second book--my review was of "Spreading Misandry," their first book.--GS
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Does anyone want to take a crack as summarizing how we got to the point where men are being so routinely trashed in the media?
It would appear that women who undertake this are reflecting, among other defects in themselves, a complete lack of conscience and objectivity.
Is it the widely held view that they have been manipulated into this? If so, by whom?
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Glenn, I prefer the cartoon movie "Ice Age", where the son is eventually returned out of the clutches of the sabre toothed tigers by the "wooly mammoth" aka family court system to his fathers. The father in the scene is a loving, and gentile, but fierce in his defense and protection of those he loves. You'll notice in those scenes, no women appear
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
sorry for the mis-spellings
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
My favorite lately is Everybody Loves Raymond. They're an equal-opportunity bashing comedy. The women get it in the chops just as fiercely as the men, there's no inequality there. There is just as much love for each, as well. Good balance. Comedies that rag on men get old quick. And show me one that rags on women. Just one. Gay shows don't count. heh.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Erlene: How exactly have women been treated so badly? In general men have always born the brunt of society's worst ills, because they wish to. Men don't like to see themselves as victims, women are much more comfortable with that. This means that women's problems, such as sexual harrassment, most of which men wouldn't consider harrassment for the reason I have stated, is dealt with swiftly and concisely. While workplace death, a man's problem and definately a more pressing concern, is largely ignored by society.
I think the problem is that women's roles have changed in the west, now that the economic siuation makes it possible for western women to work, women look back and cannot relate. Men's roles havn't changed: work, work some more, and if you're lucky spend some time with your kids. The idea that women have been oppressed is ludicrous, yet it is thrown around by feminists ad hoc, because people don't feel they need to argue against it, as they can say 'well now things are ok'
Women were never oppressed, it is impossible for a gender to be oppressed, as there are too many vested interests. If I was born a thousand years ago, would I oppress my mother? Who loved, cherished me and brought me into the world, who lived her whole life dedicated, would it be possible? Would a man oppress his daughter, the girl he has loved, provided for, protected, nurtured and cherished?
I think a little more intellectual honesty is needed.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
@Lani Niederecker, MA
From what I've seen of Everybody Loves Raymond, it seems like the episodes are disproportionately "Raymond is an Idiot" and very rarely remark on the fact that his wife is a turbobitch - usually it just shows how she's right, and she rubs it in. As a man watching the show, I can obviously see that she's cold and vindictive to her husband... but how many people simply nod along and accept that she behaves as she should?
Of course, one can hardly blame the writers, since Ray obviously is involved in the writing process and aims most of it at a safe target - himself.
When Ray complains about his wife, he's quickly verbally disemboweled. When his father complains about his wife, he usually follows it up by saying something so horriffic as to completely obliterate the utility of his own opinion.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Um.... ok.... Callum? "Man has born the brunt.." Creating wars and slaughtering animals and claiming countries aren't the only brunts, like taking responsibility for the reproduction of the entire race. Can you remember we were treated as property and chattel? Beating a woman wasn't a crime? Can you please remember also that we didn't have BASIC rights, like keeping our children at all, and mothers ARE needed - let's not get into women-hating... okay? Let's remember some facts, such as, if a woman's husband died, way back then - the state took her property? That women could not vote? Couldn't work as professors? It was very difficult for women to break into medicine, law, university education, and other fields, but, they did it. I admire those women and really detest Affirmative Action and other crutches that make weaker women "equal" to men who are stronger. But come on, let's not pretend here. There was a time when feminism was called for because women needed rights, and protection. It was just twisted, by liberals - which - let's face facts - everything is twisted by liberal press, universities - and as we see here - the courts. 0 Personally, I think the decline of this country occured partly BECAUSE women got the vote - and men didn't bother to educate them as to what was truly in their best interests. That would be teaching conservativism; not liberalism. Men are the best thing women have going, and they reject them now because they've got more power than men do. Unfortunately, without providing that education in conjunction with the RESPONSIBILITY of voting, women have run amuck... now they have most of the wealth of this country... and have filtered their male-gender bias into the educational, legislative, judicial, media, entertainment, and other social systems to the extent of control over "man's image". Bummer. Now you've lost. Getting this back on track is virtually next to impossible. Makes you wish you hadn't let them vote in the first place - but the error is just like as in Adam and Eve, funny that. Source of problem? A failure of Man to take control over the female population, when they really should. What God wanted to hear; "Eve, put that damn apple down, and shaddup. Here, have some grapes. They're tastier." What did Adam say instead? "It's that darned woman's you gave me - it's her fault! She GAVE me the apple!" To which God said, "Adam... you're so fired." It is TIME to EDUCATE women as to how they have been "sold out" by feminism, and maybe then, men will look better to them? I hope so.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Lani Niederecker, MA,
When women were treated like property and chattel, men were treated as less than property. Men were treated as disposable.
British women, over 30, finally won the right to vote in 1918.
On the first day of the Battle of the Somme, 20,000 British boys and men died. Most were under 21 years. They could not vote. All told 140,000 men and boys were killed in the Battle of the Somme. There were no women soldiers. Please do not tell me that these men and boys caused the war. The suffragette movement at that time were handing out white feathers to any male not in uniform. They did it with such zeal that the Admiralty had to hand out special badges to men returned injured from the war and to under age boys. Yes, they were handing out white feathers to 17 year old boys.
Women were never oppressed more than men. Never, in human history, have the oppressed out lived the oppressor.
Yes, lets not get into woman hating but lets not have any herstory either. Men are still treated as disposable.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
"Women were never oppressed, it is impossible for a gender to be oppressed, as there are too many vested interests."
Oh, please. I wouldn't have been allowed to own property in Texas and many other states less than 100 years ago. Marital rape was only made illegal a few decades ago. Women were unable to train to be physicians until about 100 years ago. Women did not go into politics. Etc. Yes, life in general was valued less than it is today. Yes, many people did not have the rights that we consider to be standard today. And yes, many men have died in war...just as *many* women have died in childbirth throughout the years. Women outlive men *today*, yes...because estrogen protects us from the effects of heart disease to some extent, because we are more likely to go to the doctor and otherwise attend to our health, and because we now rarely die in childbirth. I'm sure that women outlive men in Saudi Arabia, and trust me, when you can't step foot outside your house without having every part of your body but your eyes covered, and when you aren't allowed to get a drivers' license, you are being oppressed. Not sure that you realize this, but when you say that women have "never" been oppressed, you essentially destroy the credibility of your arguments that men are facing very real inequalities today, much as feminists in the U.S. who whine about being as "oppressed" as women in Middle Eastern countries destroy the credibility of their arguments. Saying that women once faced very real discrimination because of their gender, and still DO face it in certain countries in the world (albeit not this one!), does not somehow make the current men's movement invalid.
And all this has distracted me from my main point, which was, if you'd like to see a sympathetic portrayal of men and women, especially of fathers, check out the DVD set of the first season of "Heroes" when it comes out August 28. It APPEARS to be just another super-hero show, and it is like a televised comic book...but, like every great comic, it's really a story about human interaction and the power of love and of hate. Fathers screw up sometimes, just like real people, but so do mothers, and they also have their moments of greatness...and of, gasp, extreme competence! It has one of the best father-daughter relationships that I've seen on TV (or in movies) in a long time. Do keep watching past the first few episodes, otherwise you might think, "Well, that's the standard Bad TV Dad right there." I'd actually say it's more sympathetic to fathers than mothers - let's just say that there seem to be some Bad Mommy issues - but I figure there are enough counter-examples on TV balancing that out! It's not just about parent/child issues; one of the most important relationships on the show is a sibling one - but even that ties back in to the parent/child stuff. Anyway, would love to see Glenn's take on the show.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I think I see the future. Bad Mommy shows. Hey, I'm from Hollywood. I know they'll do anything for "entertainment" purposes. And I don't mind that agenda after what I've witnessed in the courts. Marion, I couldn't have said that better myself. You're quite a writer. - LN.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
"Yes, many people did not have the rights that we consider to be standard today. "
The advances made by women are excellent.
I would like all governments to enact a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:35 pm
To those women who keeping hawking up the "women were oppressed" bit ...
Forget what happened a hundred years ago! That day is done. That's the problem with women. They hold grudges. Get over the past and look at what's happening now. It is boys and men who are discriminated against, maligned, and mistreated in society--and it's extolled. Stop using the past to excuse horrendous injustices perpetrated again men now. There is no excuse for it! Innocent boys and men in current times should not have to be punished and treated unfairly for things men did many years ago--things they are not responsible for. Punishing the innocent for someone else's wrongdoing is revoltingly and abhorrently inequitable and disgustingly execrable. If future generations of boys and men grow to resent and loathe women, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 am
Marion,
"Women were never oppressed, it is impossible for a gender to be oppressed, as there are too many vested interests," appears to be addressed to Callum828 and the rest of your comments addressed to me.
1. I think Callums point was that it was not men oppressing their mothers, wives, daughters but the rulers of that time. He has a valid point. Erlene made comments that needed to be addressed.
2. My point was that women have never been 'more' oppressed than men. There has always been more widows than widowers. Which was the more oppressed, the wife who was slaving at home, tired from giving birth to so many children and with the daily drudgery of life, or her husband two miles underground working up to 16 hours shifts and if he was lucky enough to survive the cave ins he could look forward to an early and agonising death from pneumocoiosis. Incidentally, men still make up 95% of all work related deaths. If you say that women also, in previous times, worked as slave labour, I will say yes and children, but limits were placed on their hours of work. No such limits were placed on the hours men worked
You say heart disease and estrogen. I say the vast bulk of health spending going to women. Leigh Ann Leonard Director, American Heart Ass, said (to get more research and spending for women suffering from heart disease) that double the number of women as men die of heart disease, which was not only a monumental lie but she conveniently forgot to mention that the men were long since dead. You say women more likely to go to the Doctor. I say women admonishing men for not looking after themselves but calling them wimps if they so much as complain of a cold. You say women were not allowed to own property. I say, in the UK, if a wife got into debt it was the husband who went to debtors prison. If men had more rights they also had huge responsibilities.
What I am saying is that both genders were oppressed. So, with the present inequalities that men face today, is our credibility destroyed?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 am
Erlene Talbot: No! Not since the beginning of time nor in every culture have women been denigrated or 'under' men! Not at all!
All of Europe, north Africa and west Asia were part of the Paleolithic religious matriarchy which started failing about 8,000 years ago. The first known patriarchy came about in Egypt just before the founding of the two kingdoms.
There have been many matriarchies and there are still several around. The islands off the coast of east Africa are an example. Men MUST do what women tell them to do in that culture: Although today, as many of the men are working in Nigeria and other African mainland countries, the island culture is starting to change.
There have also been many cultures which were neither patriarchy nor matriarchy. The six nations native culture are an example. Although men were the chiefs, women (grandmothers) were the courts.
Your comment-error shows the size and scope of the misandry problem we face.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 am
In anthropology a patriarchy is a society where the majority of public power is held by men, a matriarchy the opposite. Every society that has ever been examined by anthropologists is a patriarchy. Feminsts will often try to "prove" the existence of matriarchies, generally either by misstating the definition of matriarchy (e.g. confusing matrilineal, and matrilocal societies with matriarchal ones) or by using incredible flimsy evidence to prove the existence of prehistoric matriarchies (what jw seems to be referring to).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
Wikipedia articles having anything to do with feminism tend to be pretty terrible, and the feminists definitely seem to have gotten their hands on it since the last time I was there. But it still backs up what I just said.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
pjanus - I think you're confusing DYING with "oppression". Yes, men are expected to serve their country, die for it, and the women in it, in order to continue their way of life and their continued progeny. They also, biologically, have a shorter lifespan. This is about the facts of life that either biology or man has chosen for himself. End of story. No "oppression" there except by what they do to each other in wars, and please note, there is nobody of another gender, absolutely nobody lording over them but God. Women, on the other hand, have been oppressed and treated like chattel - BY MEN - worked, beaten, and kept at a certain station, not allowed in certain professions, or even seen in public if they were pregnant, and that doesn't go back very far in our history at all. My mother is alive, and remembers all that, and even when we finally got the vote. THAT is oppression. Not "dying sooner" or "fighting and dying in wars" - by the way, women died too, check WWI, WWII... the only limit to that was what men have imposed on women, oppressing them, again, not allowing them to fight. True "oppression" is something that never happens to men in any society unless they differ by race or religion. Now... you were saying? I'm not one of the women who is championing feminism, or painting women as "victims" but people who did have to fight for their rights. ** They did so. ** Now, they have those rights, in this country, there is no longer any sort of NEED for "feminism". In FACT - that same "feminism" has now been sold out to liberal leftist agendas - taught in "women's studies" around the nation - and is the reverse of what women need at this time. N.O.W. should be completely abolished. Feminazis, in my opinion, is what they are now - enemies - feminizing our men, working against women on the whole, and against their true best interests, as well as being totally unfair to men, and literally persecuting them. Please, do not lump me in with these vengeful, mannish, angry, personal-agenda-filled menhaters, alrighty? Nor the other women here in this blog, who I see being reasonable and respectful of men, while still reminding them about women's history. There is a good reason for that, because: *If you don't recognize what oppression truly is, how are you going to recognize what is now happening to males? * It's their turn it seems, sadly, for this type of revenge - and yes - I think women's memories are way too long in the feminist world, and they still want retribution! It's stupid as heck. Yet, you know why: It's only been what, less than 100 years since we got that vote that - yes - women died for. (Check your history if you don't know this) and yes, they do remember, they do hold a grudge. And worse - it seems they want EVERYBODY to be a female! It's scaring the dickens out of me, frankly, with what I know about the effects of soy proteins, the media they've captured, the universities, and the court system - it's really frightening. But please, don't try to pretend there wasn't a time that women had to fight to be treated fairly and with justice and "equal treatment" - the same way YOU, as men, need to fight now!! - PS - wikipedia is well-known, along with "snopes.com" - to pretend to be objective - but unfortunately, are also in the hands of the liberal media. What now? (I've thought of creating, WATNOW - Women Against The National Organization for Women.)
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Lani Niederecker MA,
Well you really sorted out that for me, didn't you? Fancy me confusing 'dying' with 'oppression'. It seems that I really need a history lesson. The suffergetes agitating for rights that men didn't have, whilst simultaneously handing out white feathers to 17 year old boys were the real victims. Sorry, I should have known that.
And, you say that men were expected to serve their country and die for it, for the oppressed women in it, in order to continue their way of life and their progeny. You see, I was under the impression that if you died, in these circumstances, or came back from the war so crippled in mind and body that there would not be much of a life to continue. It seems I was wrong again.
And, you say that it is a biological fact that men die earlier or because of the life that we choose. No oppression there then. You're right of course, end of story. But I thought that modern feminist were going to free men from patriachy and if we all become female, whohooo, we live as long as you!
And, you say that there is nobody of another gender, absolutely nobody lording it over them except God. Do you contradict yourself, lower down, in your post, when you say 'being total unfair to men and literally persecuting them'. Oh, forget I
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
(timed out) continued.............
said that I must be wrong again.
And, you say that women were oppressed by not being allowed to fight and die in the wars. Well blow me down with a feather. If I could go back in time I would give those horrible men a piece of my mind. I must confess, I'm surprised at this though. I thought that those millions of men and boys died because they loved their women and children. Instead, they were beating and oppressing women. They do say though, that if you visit the cemeteries of these oppressors, that those white crosses go as far as the eye can see. Still, they treated their women horribly.
It seems that women only got the vote a hundred years ago. I thought it was men that got the vote a hundred years ago. Wrong again. Men have had the vote for thousands of years.
You know there was a story, in the National newspapers last year about how people were dealt with in the Criminal Courts. It seems that this lady journalist visited one of these old courts in London and looked up the records. She found an entry where three boys were brought before the judge for burglary. I think, if memory serves, that it was sometime in the Victorian era. Anyway the boys were aged 13, 12 and 8 years of age. The two older boys broke into a house and the 8 year old kept look out. They were all sentenced to a flogging. Yes they flogged an 8 year old boy. The lady journalist noticed a double standard. She saw an entry, around the same time which showed a 14 year old girl was charged with murder. It appears she had an ongoing dispute with another 14 year old girl and threw a stone at her. The stone hit the other girl on the head and killed her. The judge decided to impose no sentence on the girl and sent her home to her mother. The journalist remarked that these inequalities in sentence, to a lesser degree, still exist today. Boy, I bet that 8 year old boy was glad he was not that oppressed 14 year old girl.
Any clue as to what I am saying here? You seem to recognise the inequalities that exist today, but when you sight facts of the oppression of women, years ago, you completely disregard what life was like for men of that period. life was hard and oppressive for both genders. That was how life was lived in those days.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Golly, I can't begin to unravel what I see as.. no offense... even though you are being so sarcastic toward me... *hug*... your confusion. Maybe a better writer here can help me. Because you are twisting this.... mixing the past with the present, ignoring my bridge between the two, as the rejection of feminism. It is no longer needed in the USA clearly - the past is the past for women too, it's changed. You try to discredit merely by spinning around and around with my text in an incomrehensible manner. I never said they were "horrible to their women" and yes, I believe that you can love what you "own" as property. I also find it interesting, the way you compare apples to oranges; deliberate stealing criminal acts, over accidental manslaughter, which, has no intent. You don't know the details surrounding the cases; putting in boys with perhaps a past, who knew what they were stealing - as a judge I would give them a sentence. If you hadn't noticed, girls don't commit the same kinds of crime; they don't rape, pillage, often steal.. in jails you find women as prostitutes, and drug users. Girls only make up 5% of all arson cases, for example. So, here we have this "criminal girl"? Did she "intend" to murder? Please... Girls fighting, one throws a rock? Perhaps didn't mean to hit the other, certainly they werelikely friends, or schoolmates - so young, not understanding the consequence, and in horrible pain, perhaps losing her best friend?? Who knows the details? You can't be the judge here. You find this to be "evidence" of "oppression by society"... both you, and "the journalist" must have the same set of liberal values these feminists do, if you can use such flimsy evidence... No, no clue as to what you're saying except trying to spin men as victims in the past as well as the present, and can't process my text that states this isn't true. And you are now playing with semantics you'll have to operationally define first: I don't find "inequalities" to be always the same as "oppression". Men and women are DIFFERENT, I don't believe in pure "equality" - that is again playing into the liberal mindset, if we're all the same, then men should be more like women! And women more like men!! No, I'm sorry, but I 110% agree that they are oppressed NOW, terribly oppressed in a way women never were - in fact - it wasn't a CAMPAIGN to oppress women, it was just "business as usual" until they fought for rights, the way men must now... but THEY DIDN'T have to THEN. Sir, if you didn't know this, men have even ruled how language developed, in many ways, over women: Let me give you an example, that still exists today, because language takes so much time to change - a "bitch" is a woman, and so is a slut, a whore, a prostitute... even "nags" are, by definition, women. All these words have connotations of filth, meanness, stubbornness, unfairness, weakness, and loose morals. On the other hand, "bastard", and other terms for men (such as euphemisms for the penis) are full of strength and power, regardless of their derogatory primary useage. Even "assh*le", which when studied as a word, people will contribute to male gender cognitively - it STILL has an aspect of power...! For instance, "I would like my lawyer to be a real bastard. Real bastards win cases." You cannot find a word that equals "slut" for a man, period, no matter how hard you try. I have worked in these linguistic/semiotic studies, and would welcome you to attempt it. In recent years, women have backlashed with "man slut", "manwhore", and my personal favorite - "mangina" - but each of these merely adds the word "man" to a woman's body part or already-existing word reserved for women. Same for murse, mansierre, manpurse. So - come on - please drop this unless you still want to maintain that merely DYING sooner or fighting in the wars MEN START in this world, as "oppression". It's plainly absurd. It's *you* that don't seem to understand what the bloggers are saying to you here. By the way, here's a little more semiotic evidence: The WORST INSULT a man can give another man? CALLING HIM A WOMAN. hahah. "Wussy!" "Ya little girl!" "Nancy!" "You run like a girl... you throw like a girl.." Yes, women are the subject of ridicule and shame for their physical weakness: and if you've ever studied power, PJanus, then you should be highly aware that ALL power comes down to the physical. And men still hold the physical power, even today. If you don't start to understand things are different now for men, an oppression that has never really existed before, how can you help us fight against the unequal and unfair treatment of men now, as opposed to what you try to spin in the past? What help can you really be?
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I think the subject is a review of a book, and the recent history of media portrayals in the US of males generally, and fathers in particular, as meaningless and feckless buffoons.
Unfortunately, Lani and pjanus-especially- I think you have valid points, but are somewhat off subject. Dr. D'Urzo said it best, having read the book, and even better, correctly assumed the logical outcome of a fundamental disrespect between genders. Ultimately, I feel that there are other forces at play here beyond demographics of the workplace or the political history of gender relations. Without getting too Biblical here, we all need to realize that it's not all about the bling, us as individuals or groups consolidating positions, but we must learn to work as selflessly towards our own growth as those of others.
This can only be accomplished with a worldview that only comes froma belief in a power beyond ourselves.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Lani,
I notice you keep throwing up that men have shorter life spans biologically. Well, since you're so into the bible, you should know that Adam outlived Eve and that Methusalum--a man--lived longer than any human who has ever existed ... this is according to the bible. I don't believe men live shorter lives as a result of our biological makeup. I suspect its because men do not practice the same stringent health care regimen women do.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Lani Niederecker,
Golly, I too am finding it hard to unravel you post. I'm not much of a writer myself but it would help if could have helped silly me, by putting in a paragraph or two. Never mind, too late now.
You have revealed yourself to be an arch feminist albeit, not the scary type. Good cop, bad cop maybe?
I must confess I read your last post with utter disbelief. You can imagine how I reacted to your last post.
You really brought tears to my eyes when I saw that this 14 year old girl was the real victim. She must have felt terrible. Poor girl - so young, not as young as the 8 year old though, but still they were friends, school mates, not understanding the consequences. Excuse me, I'm just going to wipe the tears from my eye.
Oh dear. that's better. Silly me, I thought involuntary manslaughter was a crime. I've only had 32 years experience in law enforcement. You would think I would know better wouldn't you?
Now, you say I can't be the judge. Well that's true I suppose. But, you would have sentenced that 8 year old boy even though he would have been too young to understand the consequences of his actions. Well that's fair..........I suppose. He was only a male after all and a good flogging would have done him the world of good.
You say that I and this journalist must have the same liberal feminist values. Oh, I don't know she struck me as a person who was just normal and untouched by feminism. And, me having those values? You could be right though. You know, you've really got me thinking about this now. All those years, locking up those baddies and they were all innocent. Not the 8 year old boy though.
I know, I'll ask my wife. She is one of those women who understands these things. I do hope I will not cry though. That would not be very manly. After all, I've got my male power to think of.
Do you think I could skip commentating on the last half of your post? My poor man brain has gone quite dizzy. Please, those rude words they are making me blush.
I would like to query one more thing though. You say all the millions of men, MERELY, dying was not oppression and to think so is absurd. Well as you say MEN STARTED all those wars. They must have deserved it. Yes I know you didn't say they deserved it, but was men who started them. I bet you are glad you were not born a man in those days though. Go on, you little tinker, admit it. No, well perhaps not, the oppression women suffered was much worse than merely dying. Yes, you have convinced me. Merely dying, even if in horrible circumstances, what not as bad as the oppression those women suffered. I must say though, those so- ya proteins sound awfully good right now. You'll have to excuse me now. I think I need to lie down.
Dear Lani Niederecker,
I've been cruel to you, haven't I? Here you are, standing shoulder to shoulder, with the men, supporting our rights. You have bravely decided that this new brand of feminism is not good for the world and what do I do? Well I try to tell you that both genders were oppressed in the past. That's what I do. This, of course, is beyond the pale. How could anybody have their world ripped apart like that. It's not fair.
Well, I've got good news for you. If you do what some other women do, it will all go away. All you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears and it will go away.
You know after reading all your post I think I have lost the will to live. In fact if the entire male gender disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't care. You are welcome to it. You will do fine on your own. Honest.
Will you do me one last favour though. No, take your fingers out of your ear for a minute. There.........can you hear me now? Yes? Right when were gone don't curse us. Just forget we were ever hear. We have merely died after all.
Do you think we could stop now. Otherwise, one of us will have to see a psychiatrist and I've got a horrible feeling that it will be me. If there is a next time I will wear a crucifix and garlic bulbs.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Don,
You are quite right. We are totally off topic. I'm all out of silliness now so I will stop posting.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Taj - oh, respectfully, sir, although it is true that women do tend to take care of themselves more, I could argue that all day, because women even have two XX chromasomes which protects them from a lot of things, even going bald. And I'm sure you know that married women die sooner than the unmarried, but married men live longer - in addition to both groups (unmarried women, married men) having less reports of depression, sickness, less suicides, higher reports of being happy, and satisfied with life. Which makes you wonder why women want marriage so badly and men run for the hills from the ball and chain..? You'd think men would really long for marriage, and women to stay unmarried, since these statistics are very powerful. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the Bible says this will never occur. I've been very honest here in trying to deal with PJAnus, who insists on being off topic: it most certainly is NOT off topic that you've got to understand the war against men, in order to win it, however. The subject is the media; and that's what women have hijacked. It's time for men to take this back - and women like me really want to help, badly. I'm jaw-dropped, watching my husband get his children torn away from him by a vindictive, whorish, drunken wife that will stop at nothing to hurt him, and uses the children without apology in that regard, which breaks my heart to see. Now I see the destruction of the masuline image of men all over this country, it was glaring right at me and I was sweeping it under the rug like the rest. Because we want to help we've hoped Glenn and these programs will provide information and a fresh view. But the complete sarcasm for "standing by your side", yes, the disrespect I'm seeing here, well... gosh.. I think I'm parting this blog because I really believe I am seeing a lot of women haters. Misogyny is like any bigotry, and I can't abide it. Note: I am not saying sexism, because you'd be doing it on both sides. Really, I guess you men should just stick to yourselves if you're going to be unbalanced in your criticisms (some of the media doesn't intend men-bashing, for instance, in the Cadillac commercial, it would have been "a better choice" to have the woman boss intimidating a few women, too - but she's supposed to be sexy and you only have 28 seconds, folks), then attempting to completely deny the past and (present in other countries) sufferage women have had to endure - that you are now enduring yourselves, only worse - as a true "agenda" and "campaign" against you - and that's just downright counterproductive. To top it all off, I see women like Marion and myself here are compasssionate, yet you are so full of vitrol for even these women, who are legitimately trying to help you win this war in a heartfelt fashion, you stick them with nothing but more women-bashing. You're on your own, fellas. PJAnus there was a bit too much to take. Why on EARTH he thinks his hateful blabbering is just "silliness" and not hurtful, or that white feathers have something to do with anything other than pacifists is beyond me- yes, usually women left behind are emotional, tend to become pacifists, and it's created a huge liberal Democrat base of pacifists that have overhwelmed the media for decades - again something that men should have trained women in long ago. You didn't educate them then, why don't you educate them now? Had you taught them to be conservatives, understanding the BEST role for women as mothers and teachers and other great professions, if you had welcomed the women to this discussion, even, I could continue to respect the dialogue. PJAnus talks about "being dizzy" and insults writing style by not being able to follow a line of thought without paragraph marks. Ooookay. Now you've reversed the roles - you've got generations of women who hate men and now you're suffering for it; countering that, I believe what Taj says is true; it will be no surprise that the generations to come will loathe women, some, and women have themselves to blame. But you want to take no blame for this now, is that correct? lol Well, gentlemen, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and this acerbic, insulting conversation that wants to pretend that women's sufferage never existed, has only lowered you into the same position. Good luck with this.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Oh, and just a PS? As you contemplate how you are being systematically and efficiently destroyed by the industries such as the psychological, educational, legal, and the personal, individual, and societal forces that women aim against you with such vengeance - deserved or not - and you ignore your power as men and your ability to change this terrible trend - let me remind you, or if you don't already know this - do you? Do you know ultimately, how women got men to approve their voting status in the United States? Why.. they denied sex to their husbands until they said yes. :) That's a fact you can only get out of somebody who lived in that time. I hope my mother lives to 100, so she can keep reminding me to never take the fact that I can vote for granted. Women died for it, and that's something most don't want to hear. Hopefully none of you will have to die to get your rights back, but I'll tell you - better death that what I've seen - men having to pay for OTHER MEN'S CHILDREN in Wisconsin...?? Good grief, I think I'd hang myself first!
May 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
"Hopefully none of you will have to die to get your rights back, but I'll tell you - better death that what I've seen - men having to pay for OTHER MEN'S CHILDREN in Wisconsin...?? Good grief, I think I'd hang myself first!"
(She just wanted to help.)
May 24th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I'd hang myself as a woman, honey. But after this treatment you've given me? Judas priest. I don't pretend to be as strong as you men who are putting up with this mistreatment through the courts. Being a woman, oh yes, you know, how incredibly weak we are, how cry "victim" all the time, how horrible we are, how could we POSSIBLY be genuine here? Thank you sir, for demonstrating your incredible way of spinning what women like myself are trying to say, in all sincerity, completely reversing compassion into ugliness, your lack of taste and decorum in your reactions and responses to a female truly sympathizing with you. Today, men who are totally ridiculous, life-shattering situations that they can't escape, and I wouldn't be able to live with it - and you want to make this again about men-bashing? I'm beginning to think Glenn here is attracting the mentally ill. Oh, you impress me, Michael. Really sophisticated guy are ya? :) I'm serious, Glenn, you seem to be attracting women-hating men with this blog, who just want to kick us about. I came in here with sympathy and I'm leaving with a very, very bitter taste from "men" in general now. Good luck, fellas! Again, you're on your own. Ungrateful people like Michael I wouldn't spit on if he was on fire with that kind of slamming.... If it wasn't for MEN helping women get rights, we would have been lost. Maybe you want to think about that, as you are alienating all the WOMEN from your quest for fairness. Man or woman, Michael - that was totally uncalled for.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
To AJanus -
AJanus: "Incidentally, men still make up 95% of all work related deaths. If you say that women also, in previous times, worked as slave labour, I will say yes and children, but limits were placed on their hours of work. No such limits were placed on the hours men worked."
This isn't true today. Human resource has limits on more than children - laws prevent men and women from working too many hours, or by providing overtime pay. Federal law.
NEXT!
AJanus: "You say women were not allowed to own property. I say, in the UK, if a wife got into debt it was the husband who went to debtors prison. If men had more rights they also had huge responsibilities."
This isn't true today - women have HUGE rewsponsibilities too along with rights - they are just as much in debt TOGETHER and if the man runs off from his responsibilities (oh, no men ever do that, right) then the WOMAN (and about a third of women were supporting households in the USA right after 9/11 according to Time Magazine, 2003) is responsible for the MAN'S DEBTS if you divorce him, or even if he dies. No prison, just garnishment for the rest of your life if the bill's high enough. A lot of women now pay alimony. Why do you keep bringing up things that don't matter now, while ignoring things from the past that DO matter?
And btw - just to clarify about the experience here, I a) this was about the USA, the media and b) you told us to leave behind the past. With that logic, you still keep going back in time. Whacked. We've tried to say, "UNDERSTAND the past - CHANGE the future" but you keep on bashing about women instead by cherry-picking around.. crikey, AJanus... could ya be any more bitter?
May 24th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
"...women have HUGE rewsponsibilities too along with rights...."
The family court judge will decide who has rights and who doesn't.
The fathers' rights movement helps women too. The fathers' rights movement is comprised of women as well.
One of the heros of the fathers' rights movement is a 72-year old grandmother from Massachusetts. She ran for governor in 2002. She was later disbarred. She's using her own case of actions related to her disbarment to achieve what she sought to do by running for governor, judicial accountability and stricter limits on judicial immunity.
Her name is Barb Johnson. You can find her website through google.
I hope that her case goes to the Supreme Court. I hope that she is long remembered.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Lani,
You wrote:
"Taj - oh, respectfully, sir, although it is true that women do tend to take care of themselves more, I could argue that all day, because women even have two XX chromasomes which protects them from a lot of things, even going bald ..."
Since you dissented my post "respectfully," I am not going to berate you, but I will dispute your claim courteously.
Once, early astronomers thought the world was flat. Later, they discovered it was round. My point? Scientists are in the dawn of the Genetic Age, so it would be unwise to regard any of their "studies" as concrete proof until they have had more time to meticulously study all genes and thoroughly learn each of their intricate functions. While there is substantial proof that two X chromosomes protect females from sex-linked disorders, there is hardly any strong evidence to support claims that females have better health than men on average as a result of having two X chromosomes. Just as sexism has permeated the educational system, the media, and governmental institutions, it has also infiltrated science. "Scientific studies"--I'm using the term loosely--that either insinuate or directly state that one sex (usually females) is better than the other is nothing but sexist, theoretical junk science used to make an indirect attack on boys and men and should, therefore, be disregarded. Any such "studies" are just treacherous schemes to denigrate and insult men, make them feel inferior to women. With this having been stated, I refuse to accept the idea that women live longer than men because of a biological advantage. This asinine theory ignores the fact that men have different roles in society that could possibly be having a detrimental influence on their health. Societal pressures and stresses that men face could be contributing to a more rapid declining of their health than their female counterparts. In fact, I suspect that the gender gap in the lifespan of women and men will soon seal since contemporary women are currently taking on roles that were once traditionally male.
As far as men going bald, it has nothing to do with us not having two X chromosomes; it has more to do with hormones. Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) binds to genetically predisposed hair follicles and results in gradual miniaturization of the hair until it is lost. Both males AND females suffer from this hair loss. Of course, males suffer from this more than females, but it's nothing too severe that a little science can't stamp it out.
"And I'm sure you know that married women die sooner than the unmarried, but married men live longer - in addition to both groups (unmarried women, married men) having less reports of depression, sickness, less suicides, higher reports of being happy, and satisfied with life.
Yeah. I'll believe that one when pigs can naturally breed with humans and fly to distant galaxies. There are so many hidden sexist connotations in that theory until I don't know where to begin. Wow! First, this theory reinforces the feculent idea that men need women to survive, but women do not need men to survive. Second, it makes it appear like women are doing us a favor when they marry us. Third, it makes it appear that women who marry are self-sacrificing when they marry men because they are shortening their life spans by doing so. Fourth, this theory indirectly makes an excuse for praising women who choose to stay single while insulting men who choose to do the same. Fifth, this theory slyly encourages women to stay single and taunts men with the concept of having to be single as a result of more women choosing to stay single because, according to this mendacious theory, men's health will be negatively affected in the long run while women's health will improve. Sixth, this theory, via deceptive, psychological manipulation, tries to scare men, who are single and proud, into marrying to appease marriage-oriented women. This theory all around is a full heaping of rancid trash! I'm not lashing out at you; I'm lashing out at that bias theory.
"Which makes you wonder why women want marriage so badly and men run for the hills from the ball and chain..? You'd think men would really long for marriage, and women to stay unmarried, since these statistics are very powerful."
Whenever you have to challenge or "wonder" about a theory or statistic, you should regard it as erroneous. Remember, sexism against boys and men has permeated all societal institutions, so you have to be very careful as to what you read and accept as truth in regard to gender issues. This theory is completely fallacious. That's why 'men run for the hills' when women talk marriage to them and women seem to want to be married.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:03 am
In my opinion, one of the reasons that women live longer than men is because women weigh less on average.
Over the last few decades, male mortality rates have declined more than female mortality rates. In my opinion, one of the reasons for this is due to changes in the percentage of men and women who smoke.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Micheal,
Interesting. However, you would have to provide some sort of scientific evidence to support your supposition. How could weighing less attribute to a longer life span? When I wrote about the life spans of men and women, I was speaking of healthy men and women who do not involve themselves in smoking, using drugs, excessive drinking, etc. But since you mentioned it--If all men and women discontinued smoking, which gender would have a higher mortality rates?
May 26th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Enough is enough. I can't stand by and listen once again to the litany of lies that passes itself of as historical fact, now being promulgated here by Erlene, marion and Lani, the latter with particular gusto.
Anyone who categorises the history of human relationships as one of endless oppression by thuggish, brutal males inflicted on poor, innocent victimised females, is simply displaying their profound ignorance and prejudice.
So a couple of questions for Lani and the others:
Firstly, if men have so successfully oppressed women for thousands of years on end, and imposed their patriarchal ideology over any female alternative so decisively that the latter has been totally obliterated, is that not overwhelming proof of the superiority of the male sex?
Secondly, who built the amazing, miraculous, technological world that we see around us all over the globe? All those huge buildings, bridges, and tunnels, and thousands of miles of roads and railways? Those millions of cars, trucks, trains, ships and planes? The factories, hospitals and warehouses? The machines large and small that do so much of our work and serve our needs? The computers, TVs, telephones, fridges and heaters in our homes and offices that improve the quality of our lives? Who harnessed and applied the staggering amounts of energy required to run the whole show?
That is the great unfathomable mystery of herstory, is it not? Because not even the most ardent feminist has ever claimed that women created and built all these marvels. And of course it is absolutely impossible for the grunting, brainless neanderthals, otherwise known as the male sex, ever to have done so. They were obviously far too busy pushing their womenfolk around day and night. It must have been a 24 hour day, 365 day a year job for them. Just imagine: they had to watch their women like hawks in order to stamp out every manifestation of the latent brilliance and creative genius of the female sex, that was absolutely bursting to be released at every moment, but which men simply had to suppress at all costs in order to keep themselves in charge. No time for men to waste on stupid trivialities like working in the fields or down the mines. In fact it's a miracle how they ever found time to charge off on their pointless and silly wars. Building the miracles of civilisation requires both brains and energy, and we know men have neither. They are far too stupid and lazy to have ever conceived of a single invention, let alone brought it to fruition. Such limited energy as they had must have been totally concentrated on crushing their womenfolk and holding them down. Their profound ignorance is also proven by the fact that they deliberately stifled the creative genius of the superior female half of the population, that would surely have built that civilisation in double quick time if only they had been allowed to do so, instead of being forced to waste their lives serving the idle whims of their useless male oppressors.
What a tragic waste. What a display of endless, self-defeating stupidity on the part of the unbelievably hopeless, selfish, inward-looking, and utterly uninspired male sex. Thousands of years tossed down the pan because men were just too idiotic to look beyond the end of their noses.
So I come back to that most baffling of all mysteries. Exactly who was it that did build the world we see around us today? The animals? Martians? Spontaneous self-creation out of nothing? Will we ever know?
Come on ladies, you have all the brains, and since you liberated yourselves so heroically from the stifling yoke of male oppression, you now have the freedom to speak out and teach us poor benighted males the great truths of the universe. Help us out here!
Or of course you could just admit the truth that you would rather avoid, because it blows your little theory out of the water. The truth that women simply sat back and watched as men did it all, pouring their energy, sweat and genius, and ultimately their health and their lives, into their great works. Great works from which women have benefitted enormously despite making the minimum of contribution; but which some apparently have not got the basic decency to even acknowledge.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:17 am
"But since you mentioned it--If all men and women discontinued smoking, which gender would have a higher mortality rates?"
I think that men would have higher mortality rates and women would live longer on average because they weigh less on average. This is only my opinion.
May 27th, 2007 at 12:16 am
John,
Sadly, socieity only highlights the bad things men have done in the past and the bad things men do in the present. Even now, all the amazing and marvelous things good men do now is shadowed behind reports in the news of all the horrendous things bad men do.
May 27th, 2007 at 2:33 am
I just bought Legalizing Misandry on line and will comment on it afterwards. Thank you for the reviews.
May 27th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Taj
Yes, but I also need to ask exactly who makes up this "society" that chooses to highlight the worst of men and ignore the best? How did they ever come to be speaking for the rest of us? In my view any society that denigrates its best and prefers to believe the worst of its people, is not just sick but on its death bed. Who has brought us here?
If we could take a time machine back to. say, the time of the Renaissance or the formation of the great democracies of the world, should we have told them not to bother? Would those great men have risked all for their vision of a better tomorrow for all, if they had known that a future generation would take all their efforts for granted and define them as oppressors simply because of their sex?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
All of this going back and forth about what men have done in the past and what women didn't do and vice versa, is not going anywhere. It is not helping anyone on this blog. I thought both movements (men's and women's) were trying for gender equality not trying to be better than one another. I don't think it is productive to society for men and women to make enemies out of each other. It is truly not in the best interest of our children. We really need to look beyond ourselves and see the bigger picture.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Juststoppingin,
You state that you thought that both men and women's rights movements were "trying for gender equality"--maybe you're thinking too hard. Women's rights have never been about true equality. It's always been about women receiving special privileges in society over men while forsaking the responsibilities needed to attain such privilages. A good example of this would be how women's rights activists screech on about women not having a fair share in politics, yet none of them mention not having a fair share in the draft--a process in which men--and men only--are coerced into signing our lives over to this misandrist country to defend it in case of a war.
Misandry, which is perpetrated by plenty of women's rights groups, is about degrading and dehumanizing boys and men; and until it is obliterated, men and women will continue to be "enemies" in this generation and generations to come whether you find it unproductive or not. The use the "children" bit to distract our focus on destroying misandry is fruitless because children seem to be more of a mother's progeny in this day. Fathers are regarded as a worthless aspect of children's lives and are, therefore, systematically ripped out of their children's lives. They are not "our" children--we're just sperm donors; they are their mother's children. If we are going to focus on any children, it should be the boys. They are the ones reaping all the worst as a result of misandry. Even more chilling is the fact that if misandry isn't demolished, these boys will be harrowed by the same imprecations that we as men suffer in the current when they become men.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Juststoppingin
I would echo Taj's comments.
There is an important point here that cannot be ignored or glossed over. I believe it is vital to define your starting point in any debate. But there has been a deliberate and very forceful attempt on this thread to set out the starting positions of men and women as oppressors and oppressed respectively. This is the classic feminist tactic of putting men on the defensive straight away, and is at the heart of the issue Glen identified at the start - the development and practice of misandry in our society. So it is bang on topic.
Now I utterly refuse to enter any debate from a starting point that I know is false. I will not have my forefathers defined as misogynistic brutes when I know they were nothing of the sort; nor will I accept that as their inheritor who shares their sex, I have to be censured, blamed or punished for their supposed crimes. This is what I find intolerable. Hence the necessary correction to the false claims that have been posted here, before there is any chance of moving forward. I am counterbalancing the anti-male attitudes that I have read here by a timely reminder of the PROVEN good that lies in the nature of ordinary men, against the UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS that their nature is in some way evil. It is sad and regrettable that we have to begin the debate so far back, but it is necessary when there has been a blatant attempt by females to hijack the moral high ground.
But now look where we stand, if we can agree that men do not start from a position of moral inferiority or collective guilt. It then becomes abundantly clear that there is absolutely no justification for misandry in our society, whether at a personal level or legalised, institutionalised or in any other form. So the debate is as good as over, and all that remains is for all good men and women to take the necessary action that cries out to us, i.e. to sweep aside all the misandric habits, propaganda, assumptions and actions that blight our lives. And good riddance.
But is this happening? Of course not. Because that starting point is exactly where the likes of Lani do not want or intend to be. No way, no how. And there are plenty of people of both sexes who think like Lani. They don't want to be where there is only one way out, because that way will deprive women of their victim status and their claim to special privileges and advantages. This is the crux of it. This is why misandry is necessary to such people; it is imperative for them to demonise men in order to justify or excuse the loading of privileges and advantages onto the favoured ones, i.e.women.
That's how the racket works. That is why it is so difficult to agree the starting point of any debate on this subject; the argument over where that starting point is to be located is the very battleground itself.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Taj and John Clarke,
My main point is that we all need to stop looking at and fighting over the past and find a solution for a better future. I don't think that blaming women as a whole for the problem is a good starting point to solve this issue. If a solution is to be found it will be through working together and not pointing the finger back and forth at each other. If I respond to statements that you guys have made then I will going back and forth with you. The very thing that I said is not helping in the first place. We all need to stop blaming and do something!!
May 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
juststoppingin,
'We all need to stop blaming and do something'
Agreed. However, letting false claims and propaganda pass unchallenged is what got us into this mess in the first place. This mess is on going precisely because of this. If it is not stopped we will never progress.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I don’t know why I bother because Lani and John Clarke probably left this thread long ago never to return, but just in case they do return, I’d like to point out a few things.
Well Lani, your mentioning of language and how it’s used for oppression is interesting, but you neglect some things regarding that issue. Words like lout, louse, whittol (a man who tolerated his wife’s abuse) , were all words used to specifically denigrate males, and they’ve been around for a long, long time. And in addition to that (and you even mentioned some of those), words like asshole should not even be gender specific, even though it is usually directed towards men. And you seem to nit-pick connotations with that word and the word “bastard”. Take the latter, for instance. Yes you’re right, it can be used favourably (as you exemplified), but how can you overlook the fact that is just as (if not more) often used unfavourably against males? Besides the same can be said for words predominantly describing women. I remember my grandmother once described a woman friend who was a supervisor at a manufacturing plant she worked during the second world war endearingly as a “cold, hard bitch”. Lani, don’t you remember any such similar instances in your own lifetime?
Also, on the issue of war as an instrument of oppression of men, remember that if men did not wish to fight, if they expressed fear to go to war, both women and men would stigmatize and deride them as cowards and so forth, and women would not deem them “manly” enough to be their lover/husbands--they would be undesirable mates (women support and promote those warring instincts in men as much as men do). But anyway they couldn’t just “not wish” to fight–they had no choice; they would be jailed if they refused (the last generation of men–hopefully–that this has happened to were the men during the Vietnam War) The fact that before they could vote, so many young men were shipped off and forced to go to war, is I think the point pjanus is trying to make (hence, in effect, not really having the “right”–that is, the power-- to vote, because they were dead before they could) and I agree with that. The power to life and have life is the ultimate power (in many people’s opinions). Does that not make sense to you Lani? Sorry, I don’t mean to sound pushy, I just genuinely want to hear what you have to say in response.
And just so I don’t seem like I’m picking on you Lani I have some problems with John Clarke’s above post. All those marvels of technology you mention John were indeed created by the work of men (although I know that women had quite a signicant role in the very first analogical computer programs, and I’m presuming they had a hand in other things as well but perhaps I shouldn’t be so presumptuous?) but remember that women were not given the opportunity to participate in some/many of those undertakings, and also denied the education to learn how to accomplish such undertakings. While still at other times, the old bioligical imperative got in the way, that is men being more physically inclined to do some of the more arduous undertakings. Just as women were kept from much of the public sphere due to the obligations of bearing children, men were forced/obliged to undertake all those dangerous, ardous, stressful undertakings. So much oppression vs privilege and inequality between the sexes throughout the ages is founded in this biological imperative.
July 4th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Sheldon
I have not gone away! Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree that women had far less chance than men to participate in undertakings, but the whole point as you agree is that this is due to biology, not some kind of male oppression. So I don't quite follow why you "have some problems" with my post when you seem to be in full agreement on that point. I understand that you don't want to be hard on women, but the reality is that their contribution to the growth of civilisation and technology is pitifully meagre, especially considering that they have represented at least 50% of the human population, and presumably therefore something like 50% of the supposed brain power, throughout history. How could 50% of the population ever have suppressed the ability and knowledge of the other 50%, at all times and in every culture, for thousands of years on end? Especially when the oppressors spent so much of their time outside the company of the oppressed? Yet feminists and female apologists would have us believe this was so. Why the hell did not women get together and educate themselves - exactly as men had done? If women had seriously wanted to share the same risks, hard work and intellectual endeavour that the great male inventors, dicoverers, pioneers and builders of history endured, there is simply no way that men could ever have denied them. Once women acted in concert to demand the vote, it did not take them long to get it. When women concertedly decided they wanted to enter colleges and universities that had previously been for men only, they soon succeeded. Men cannot stop women if there is something women want badly enough! But of course even that misses the point. Who created something to vote for in the first place? Who built the colleges and universties in the first place? Who created and stored the great library of knowledge which forms the basis of education in the first place? Why was it nearly always men? Women did not participate for the overwhelming reason that they were not interested, and had other matters to attend to - like their first and last great duty, the bearing and raising of healthy children. They did not want to take the risks or do the work that men were doing, which held out no guarantee of success, but might even get you killed (for example as a religious heretic or a political threat). It was only after men had made these things safe and rewarding, that women decided "now it's our turn" - and demanded and got them. Male oppression? I see the history of the sexes as much more like female opportunism! They have got the benefits without doing the work. That's bad enough, but to then attack and vilify the memory of the very people who created the benefits they are enjoying today...it's shameful.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Gender inequality is culture driven not a history phenomenon; culture make us proud, dignified, distinct and unfair to our own surroundings.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:25 am
[...] deals with American advertisements. Canadians Paul Nathanson and Katharine Young, authors of Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, are also quoted. To read the full article, click [...]
August 7th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
You guys will never dissuade a hardened feminist.She has been indoctrinated into believing that women have suffered ,oh so terribly,at the hands of men for the last million years,and must,on every occasion go for the jugular
whenever weakness is shown.Never mind the consistent ill justices shown to men in every sphere she is quite happy with a system of inequality as long as it favours women.
Men as a sex have never oppressed women,rich and powerful men and women have always oppressed the poor and are still doing so if not worse than ever,but instead of fighting the real oppressers women like to pick on the poor old joe.They still like to lick the boots of the well to do which includes most of their own leaders who have totally brainwashed them.
Men in the last few decades have put women on a pedestal,it's time they were knocked off it and allowed to find their own level.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Callam828 You ask how women have been treated so badly..." What planet have you been living on? Go to a web site called AlterNet and read "women are being beheaded..." You can ask how women are mistreated?? Surely, you jest.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Incredible. I feel like Bill O'Reilly - the feminists call me pro-life, and super conservative, and others like some of you men here are crazy enough to call me a "hardcore feminist" for merely reminding you of where the entire "male-bashing mentality" comes from.
Hope all of you feel the world is easing up some in fairness to men; I know that our court case has gone well against a woman abusing the court system. It's interesting to come back here after almost a half year, and read this again.
Evidently it never sank in, anything I said, that I hate the grudge-holding of women today in terms of "feminism" and "male-bashing" - but my point has been lost , somehow, that you must understand their "justified" (in their minds) view in order to FIGHT their tactics to literally enslave men. The ad we talked about, with Mr. Divorced Dad standing on the curb, watching the Mrs. and the kids driving away, sadly, after an afternoon at Disneyland - with him paying for everything they have - plus his own place, because she gets alimony and child support and doesn't have to be responsible for anything - is one of the saddest advertisements I had ever seen in my life. I am glad they don't show that ad anymore, as i am aware. Women got screwed by liberalism too, the same way men did - but that's a subject for another day.
I took the vow to 'obey' when I got married; what a "feminist" I must be, I am against abortion, and feel my husband is head of his household, his word is law; but my goodness, I am Gloria Steinem all over again according to some of you. lol Hey, you aren't reading; I argued here that I sympathize with the plight of men who are, or were, so "abused" by "the system". Yet, I got knocked around for even mentioning that thngs weren't very fair for women either, and how understanding that would help you gain ground on how they beat it. Instead, I get a lecture, reminded that women weren't allowed to be involved in the "building of this country" with bridges and water systems. Well, they are now - now women get college degrees and support men a whopping percentage of the time in the USA. Especially when the economy is bad, women shoulder up to a third of the jobs with a mate who is jobless. They are scoring higher in grades and aptitude tests on math and science than men, and yet their pay is still not comesurate with men in the same jobs; it is still about 75 cents to the dollar as compared to men (that's better than it used to be by 50%). For saying that, I'm sure I'll again - be called a feminist of some kind. Even if women are contributing far more to our nation today because they're "let in" now, into the university and corporate "clubs". In fact, what is scaring men is that they're literally taking over.
Almost five months since this last post, I look back at this blog, and realize that people didn't express themselves very well - including myself - which only proves that people generally mean well - but communicate poorly. You never really read my post that I didn't like it that women seek revenge, and still do, through the media, courts, educational systems, and political means - with men as their intended target. But it must not be a real passionate point when you stop so abruptly back in May. And I came here because I feel it's such a sad state of affairs. I had passion when I arrived, that could be harnessed toward change. Yet, instead of using that to affect real change - I even got called a "feminist plant" in the blog, and shoved around if I merely say - look - you've got to understand HOW women GOT THAT CHANGED even THOUGH they were "oppressed" - and *YOU AS MEN* CAN do all that TOO - by "redefining" and "reframing" with Newspeak, and controlling certain channels, working on the public, you can change all this. We, as women, did. How did we do that, this mysteriously "weaker" sex?
Women are communicators and know how to control what is "politically correct" through redefining themselves and their environment. They're powerhungry ultrafast conductors of information between themselves like a hive. Men, on comparison, only speak one-fifth of the words women do. And if one man asks another to a movie or dinner, they'd think they're 'gay' and run for the hills. Women can even hug and hold hands. Since men don't want to hear all those extra words women speak, women talk to each other. Hence, they are "organized" and don't need female bonding the way men make an effort with "male bonding". This helped women get where they are today because of that communication, in my humble opinion. Maybe you'd better try unifying yourselves better than this.
Truth: Men are not stupid, even if the jokes of the world with to paint them so; they are simple, and simplicity is a beautiful thing. Women are complicated by comparison, and that is a beautiful thing as well, because - well it makes the world more interesting, creates "drama", and keeps men entertained. This is an observable truth that women are perplexing and yet wonderful to the elegantly simple male mind. But there's a problem.
Evidently it's so simple that you cannot comprehend the manipulation of women, their most famous trait - sneaky, viscous, and patient in dealing with animals five times their strength and twice their size - that now in a world of political correctness hold your very teabags in their painted claws. Women are favored by the court, the media, the educational system - so that now women graduate more often from colleges than men do. They are moving up, fast, and hold most of the wealth of the United States because of inheritance, and they make up most of the swing vote. So women really do rule the world while they sit back and still whine that it's you, working at the top in positions like CEOs, Presidents, Congressmen, and Military heads, that control them, and still they continue to complain that the glass ceiling still hasn't been broken yet. Didn't the Bible warn that women would always lust for power over men? But that men would always "lord over them"?
However, here's a twist. That claim is about to change, which will undermine all that reminiscing about how "unfair life was" in the past for women: a female at the top of the political foodchain in the United States.
Lucky for you, Sarah Palin, and not Hillary Clinton, will be the first female president - and she adores her First Dude and kids, and puts her country first like a real woman. Perhaps she can educate women to understand that it is in their best interests to help men, respect men, listen to their counsel, and obey them in marriage. And that most of all, men deserve to be loved and APPRECIATED. Because yes, they sacrificed their lives to protect this country (as do many women today), worked hard to build this country (as did women, at home beating clothes on a washboard and cooking, having babies.. schooling them... etc.. again, let's not shortchange the ladies)...
God bless you all.
Maybe the election will let the pendulum, which always swings back, go in the direction that will stop women from painting themselves as "victims" and treat men more fairly.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:22 am
[...] New Column: Poisoning Our Culture Against Men May 21st, 2007 by Glenn Sacks Well, not exactly "new," but never before seen by the public. In 2001 Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson wrote Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. While reading about Katherine's and Paul's participation in the upcoming Third National Mens Equality Congress July 13-14 in Washington D.C., I was reminded of a review I wrote of the book. I wrote the review five years ago, a major paper purchased the piece but never ran it, and it has been sitting on my computer ever since. With the Mens Equality Congress coming up, it seems like a good time to release the piece as Sacks Media Group Content. The piece is obviously rather dated, but the essence of the book still comes through, and many of the ills they pointed to 5+ years ago are, unfortunately, still with us. Poisoning Our Culture Against Men By Glenn Sacks Finally someone has studied and written a book about a phenomenon which nobody speaks of but which is evident to any thinking American--our popular culture continually belittles and demonizes men. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson is a painstaking expose of how men are portrayed negatively in movies and television. Young and Nathanson break down the depiction of men in modern TV and movies into several categories, including Laughing at Men, Bypassing Men, Blaming Men, Dehumanizing Men, and Demonizing Men. Shows like Home Improvement and Men Behaving Badly, for example, laugh at the main male characters and almost always portray them as being wrong and the women in their lives as almost always being right. These shows and others, such as The Simpsons and The Golden Girls, display several of the common misandrist themes Young and Nathansons studies have found: Men are coarse and inferior but they can improve in spite of themselves--by accepting the advice and teaching of women, who are intrinsically wise and civilized; Men can be worthwhile and lovable, but only despite their masculinity and never because of it; Women can mock men and men can mock men but it is generally unacceptable for anyone, male or female, to mock women; When women make misandrist remarks, the audience is to laugh along with them, but when men make misogynistic remarks, the audience is to laugh at them; Women can scrutinize and criticize a mans behavior, but men cannot scrutinize and criticize a womans behavior. Some shows and movies, such as Murphy Brown, Waiting to Exhale, and How to Make an American Quilt, portray most men as useless, and encourage women to simply bypass them. Others, such as The Handmaids Tale and The Long Walk Home, blame men for social ills. The Long Walk, for example, is based upon the modern, utterly fanciful notion that it was only Southern white men, not Southern white women, who were racist against blacks and sought to keep them in their place. Still others, such as Sleeping With the Enemy, A Kiss Before Dying, and Deceived, dehumanize and/or demonize men. In Deceived, the main female character, Adrienne, falls in love with and marries Jack, a seemingly loving and caring man. After five years of happy marriage, which includes the birth of a daughter, Adrienne discovers that Jack secretly is a murderer and a criminal. In the end, she narrowly escapes with her life. The lesson is a common one--no matter how good even the best of men may seem to be, women are never safe, and men can never be trusted. Young and Nathanson note that many modern versions of older films or folktales have altered the original plot in order to portray men negatively and women positively. In Disneys Beauty and the Beast, for example, Beautys three evil sisters have been eliminated, an obnoxious male chauvinist (Gaston) has been invented, and the Beast has been turned from a kind, undeserving victim into a selfish and deservedly punished cad who can only be redeemed through a womans love. In the modern remake of Cape Fear, Sam, a decent, loving husband and father in the original version (1962), is transformed into a philandering coward and a possible child molester. At the end of the new version, Sam is not united with his wife and his daughter--the two women are united and Sam is despised by both of them. This is another common theme--men can depend on women, but women can and should only depend on each other. To further illustrate television misandry, the authors randomly selected and examined various weeks of TV Guide blurbs. During the week of January 9-15, 1999, for example, the blurbs alone indicate that viewers can expect to see a man kill his wife (twice), rape a woman, murder a child, stalk a woman (twice), murder or attempt to murder a woman (six times), discriminate against a woman, beat his wife, and murder his classmate. Womens advocates once taught American society the valuable lesson that the stereotypes of women that we see in television and movies will, in one form or another, be translated into our larger culture, and thus it is important that women be portrayed fairly. Unfortunately, many of them (and many of the women and men who were influenced by them) forgot their own lesson when it came to negative portrayals of men in popular culture. Young and Nathanson express hope that the many men and women who are distressed by the cultural belittling men endure can help jar our societys memory--and its conscience. GlennSacks.com Blog Archive New Column: Poisoning Our Culture Against Men Wisedoms: A drunken woman never lies Paper is patient The cake is a lie Life is hard but unfair The line between love and hate is paper-thin [...]
September 25th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
@ Lani Niederecker, MA
You have stated this: "I'm jaw-dropped, watching my husband get his children torn away from him by a vindictive, whorish, drunken wife that will stop at nothing to hurt him, and uses the children without apology in that regard, which breaks my heart to see. " And this: "I know that our court case has gone well against a woman abusing the court system". What I wonder is this: How hard did you push your husband to go after his ex wife? Was he involved in this case when you met him? Did you disregard him and his need to have peace and push him into legal battle? It's been a year and half and it's not over? Behind every great man there is a great woman.
I ran a piece of this post through what you would call a liberal universities plagiarism catcher here on the east coast and I am wondering this: Did you ever read those books at all? Read Chaucer's Griselda and Walter. Or did you read those too. I suppose you know how to read Old English because it seems that you are an expert on every thing that is said here. I would love to hear your comments on Poisoning Culture Against Men in the 13th century. I agree with John Clarke when he said, "litany of lies that passes itself of as historical fact". Give me facts not fiction. What is the name of the major paper that wanted to run your paper on the topic? How sad that you have given the public enough "talk" to label you that you despise so much. You are contributing to the poison and the negativity of this male culture. What is your solution? I'm really wanting to know.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
How to fight misogyny:
STEP 1: Demonize men in every way possible.
How to fight misandry:
STEP 1: Demonize women in every way possible.
OR you know, we could ALL take positive proactive steps toward recognizing institutionalized sexism and defeating it by changing some of the things we ALL do that promote unhealthy attitudes toward both genders.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
"I agree. what would you suggest we do on the blog to promote this?"
Criticism, criticism and criticism... okay, we're criticizing men and women (men are criticizing women and women are criticizing women). It's ALL too easy to look at another faction and say "ur doin it rong!!1!" or "ur opresin me!!1!"--people criticize others all the time, but rarely do they ever look at their selves and their group and think "Hey, what is it that makes us look bad to men/women? What are we doing that's holding us back? What is our social responsibility?"
That's my follow up $0.02
August 12th, 2009 at 6:54 am
OK. What I'm about to tell you is factual and extremely important. The REAL reason behind the gender problems facing us today is the New World Order. Before you switch off and dimiss me as a conspiracy nut consider: They are in the process of implementing a one world government. They control the media. They've been working towards the imminent New World Order for almost a hundred years.
Men are the biggest threat to the NWO as they're the most physically dangerous and most likely to challenge authority, so the Ruling Elite have been subjugating men in the media portraying them as incompetent, lazy, lying buffoons who always lose to the morally and intellectually superior women. However the reality as countless studies and empirical observations have proven is that men are intellectually superior overall. That is they have higher IQs. The reason is biological and evolutionary, women's intellect has evolved to be grouped mainly around the average to ensure minimal competency to multitask all the variables and tasks involved in the nest environment ensuring the survival of offspring. Men's IQs more evenly span the entire spectrum, so the females can more easily discern the more intelligent males as the differences are larger, it also means that the superior males chosen will be more intelligent than the best of a group of average males thus serving to accelerate humanity's intellectual evolution. I'm speaking in terms of pure intellect (IQ not EQ) Intelligence encompasses a much broader range including EQ and creativity but pure IQ advantage is sufficient to pose an intellectual threat. Men have also been subjugated in the court systems, men are treated much more harshly in all convictions, especially family courts, and the anti-smacking law is another anti-male control.
It's in the NWO's interests to dumb down society as it would make them easier to manipulate. The celebration of mediocrity in schools is part of that.
The vast majority of geniuses are men, so that's another reason to oppress them. How many tv reports or magazine/newspaper articles have been promoting female achievements over men, I remember seeing a new scientist mag with a girl's picture on the cover and the caption read "The new face of science" Upon reading the article I found that she just made some pretty nano designs using a technique of manipulating arrangements of atoms developed by the pioneering team leader who was an older white male.
To recap, the NWO have been subjugating men because they're more physically dangerous, more likely to challenge authority, and have higher IQs. The NWO are using the oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer, if the genders are at each other's throats they're distracted and can't unite against the imminent Draconian one world government., keeping men down at the same time.
We shouldn't fight each other, we should celebrate our differences and our similarities and realise we're being manipulated.