Doris Lessing: 'The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests'
May 3rd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did...
"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives. [The teacher tried to] catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish...This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing."--novelist and longtime feminist icon Doris Lessing
One of my favorite quotes about the modern gender wars from novelist/feminist icon Doris Lessing. She elaborates on this theme in the article below.
Lay off men, Lessing tells feminists: Novelist condemns female culture that revels in humiliating other sex
The Guardian [UK]
5/14/01
The novelist Doris Lessing yesterday claimed that men were the new silent victims in the sex war, "continually demeaned and insulted" by women without a whimper of protest.
Lessing, who became a feminist icon with the books The Grass is Singing and The Golden Notebook, said a "lazy and insidious" culture had taken hold within feminism that revelled in flailing men.
Young boys were being weighed down with guilt about the crimes of their sex, she told the Edinburgh book festival, while energy which could be used to get proper child care was being dissipated in the pointless humiliation of men.
"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," the 81-year-old Persian-born writer said yesterday.
"Great things have been achieved through feminism. We now have pretty much equality at least on the pay and opportunities front, though almost nothing has been done on child care, the real liberation.
"We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?
"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.
"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."
Lessing said the teacher tried to "catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish".
She added: "This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.
"It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.
"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.
"Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."
Lessing claimed that much of the "great energy" whipped up by feminism had "been lost in hot air and fine words when we should have been concentrating on changing laws.
"We have got the pay but only real equality comes when child care is sorted out and it hasn't been yet, well not for those who really need it anyway".
Lessing also revealed she is not going to write a third volume of her autobiography because she did not want to offend so "many great and eminent people by reminding them of their silliness. I just can't be bothered, to be honest."
"));
19 queries. 0.691 seconds.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Thank you Doris,
The first to break free of the "gender feminist paradigm" will be (by necessity) the bold avante guard radicals.
God bless the "avante guard".
They will be fallowed by those that start to find it "safe", to voice concerns for mens rights.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Good stuff.
Although I have to question her statement "almost nothing has been done on child care, the real liberation."
In what way are women oppressed by choosing to care for their own children? At least the have the right to, unlike men.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Also, it's 'avant garde'
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I found this great quote on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Lessing
Lessing does not like the idea of being pigeon-holed as a feminist author. When asked why, she replies:
" What the feminists want of me is something they haven't examined because it comes from religion. They want me to bear witness. What they would really like me to say is, 'Ha, sisters, I stand with you side by side in your struggle toward the golden dawn where all those beastly men are no more.' Do they really want people to make oversimplified statements about men and women? In fact, they do. I've come with great regret to this conclusion."
– Doris Lessing, The New York Times, 25 July 1982
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Hallelujah!
Men can forever make such claims, but will never be taken seriously. Women will have to do it if there is going to be any change.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Nice to hear that there are still a few feminists around who want true equality between the sexes, who don't have to put men down just to feel better about themselves.
So... where are all of the Feminist Dissidents and those who are Discontented with Masculinity? What say you?
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
What Doris has to say about our current educational system pretty much mimics exactly what I said the problem was in the discussion regarding how efforts to help boys in school were being protested on grounds that helping boys would somehow hinder girls.
Here is what I said:
"It wasn't the alteration in teaching methods that did boys in... it was the alteration in teaching attitude that girls need to be encouraged and motivated at every turn, and boys don't."
Which pretty much resonates with Doris' observation that:
"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."
This is the reason boys are falling behind in school... how can anyone be expected to perform well in an environment where you are subtly vilified and made to feel inferior all day long by those who are supposed to be looking out for your best interests and ensuring your proper development?... the answer is that you can't.
Until this pervasive attitude changes and the educational system begins to be sensitive to the emotional state of boys and tries to lift them up instead of stomping them down, we won't see much improvement in this area.
Boys need a positive environment within which to succeed, one where they are taught about the inherent potential for good that exists within them, and have this potential encouraged... if they are merely taught how villainous men are, guess what they are likely to become?
Yet some people would deny that this toxic environment even exists... there is of course a quick way to test that theory, ask young boys and young girls what they think about men and women based upon what they are taught in school. If they have a strong opinion of one gender being morally superior to the other, odds are they didn't come to that conclusion on their own.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It is beyond dispute that very, very few men were noticing the male bashing until a relatively short time ago, and it's due to the Internet. Young women in college were taught how oppressed they were, and the vast majority of men had no idea that small group of anti-male women were spreading venom. A new day has dawned, and Glenn is at the forefront of it. Does anyone think that Fox would have been inundated with thousands of communications about it's father bashing celebration just 7 years ago? Or even three years ago? I doubt it.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
i contend that if men need women to do the heavy lifting in our struggles, we're toast!
men need to do 2 things.
1) stop letting women make life decisions that adversely effect or punish men for rediculous and frivolous reasons. this meens get out of their lives and stay out......asap.
2) stop making babies.
if or until that happens, all this posturing by life long feminist is a waste of time.......our time.
thats my take.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Doris,
Thanks for noticing. It has been overdue for a long time and men are - due to their disposable status in society - ill-qualified to fight the society itself or even think about doing so. If they do, it will be quick, decisive and has a great potential of turning out ugly. See, due to lack of sympathy and empathy towards men, the "fight" cannot be mere protests and rallies. The protest and rallies and activism you see now are pleadings of men to not take us to a "must-fight" stage.
Men DO NOT want to fight the women (including me) and most are reluctant to fight anything that claims to be representative of women (e.g. feminism). Most women do not realize on their own (its so easy not to even see it) that they are bashing, vilifying and denigrating men. The "can't we just get along attitude" of men towards women has allowed feminists (the dogmatic kind) to fracture, rupture and corrode the strong but susceptible part of the human society.
Repeat callums' question here. Does anyone know?
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
"Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did.."
Another "blame the victim" statement. Men are not being proivided or allowed the opportunity to fight back.
It is feminism, and specifically radical feminism, which has created the current situation.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Some of us already reached that point Donnie. I want nothing further to do with women nor will I sire children because of the rabidly anti-male bias on the part of the courts, media and government. I was married before but mercifully no children came along before I was forced to file for divorce because of my ex's increasingly disrespectful and dangerous behavior. I and others like me are looking out for ourselves and our loved ones too because nobody else will. I and others like me realize relationships with women are very risky because of outside interference from the government, courts and feminists. People can call me a misogynist or whatever they please all they want, it makes no difference to me. Life made me harder than titanium armor plate mentally, so words have little effect except to make me chuckle.
Taras
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Lessing said, "I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.
'You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives.'
Lessing said the teacher tried to "catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish."
Question: Why didn't she set that teacher (?) straight?
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I take comfort in knowing there's a kindred spirit out there in feminism after reading this article. What she sees is exactly what I see going on present times where men are vilified for their sex.
I'm all for women's rights (Like Doris), but I'm also for Men's Rights as well (and Doris sympathesizes and doesn't agree with villifying them).
Thank you, Doris.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Donnie, Taras,
I agree. I'm in my 40s and have never married. I'm in excellent shape finanicially and my house will likely be paid off in a couple years. I have no incentive to marry or be a father, as much as I would like both, and feel I have good things to bring to the table. But why would I want to risk everything I have worked for in a marriage that could destroy me in the courts? No thanks. There's decent women out there who want decent men so they can have a life together, but there are so many strikes against the men that it just isn't worth the risk. I may die single and childless, but the alternative is a potential life of hell.
Thank you Doris, for recognizing the situation for what it is.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Dont buy any of that snake oil this feminist is selling. It's the same old drill with this broad. It's never going to be enough and she doesn't care if planet earth gets turned into a burning hell all that matters is what she wants. That chick gives it away at the end with her final solution liberation. Which is not ever going to be final. It's just the next phase. "We made a lot of progress BUT until we get child care, pet care, shoe care, car care, bikini wax care, nail care, chick flick care, breast implant care, ear pierce care, me me me care, it's all about me care, I'll never shut up about it care..."
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I fear her comments are too little and too late. She's still a dedicated feminist, and at this point, the destruction of society and family is so complete, that nothing will resurrect it. Think Humpty-Dumpty.
Women are starting to get uncomfortable. The number of men willing to commit to women is falling steadily, while the number of men that are going gay is climbing. Society is falling apart, and our borders are porous, to say the least. The economy is dangerously close to collapsing, and somewhere deep inside the mind of every woman is the knowledge that men, regardless of how abused by women, will come to the rescue. Yet, we aren't.
Virtually all of us, to one degree or another, have been emasculated by society. We may deny it, but we're all afraid of the women we work with. We're afraid of false accusations of harassment or rape. How many of us, if we saw a baby crying by itself in the mall, would run over to see what was wrong? Personally, I would quietly walk the other way and leave the kid to fate.
The comments made by this feminist are useful only in that they demonstrate that women, in spite of their ability to admit wrongdoing, are getting confused. It wasn't supposed to work out this way. Men weren't supposed to quietly withdraw, and leave women to their own devices. Yet, increasingly we are doing precisely that. I, for one, have become a separatist out of necessity. I have no dealings with women. Ever. I rarely speak to them, never socialize with them, and avoid them at all costs.
I don't hate them. I don't believe in hate. I just don't trust them, so being very pragmatic, I avoid what I know I can't trust.
Eventually, when society has reached a more advanced level of decay, women in droves will abandon feminism and come flocking back to men. It will be too late because these same women have castrated men, and most of us don't care anymore. Testosterone levels are falling steadily, and men are giving up. Why battle with women and against society when it's easier to play computer games and eat a pizza? At some point in the recent past, men starting realizing that the price paid for a woman's so-called affections was no longer worth the inflated price they demanded. It's just not FUN anymore. There is no ENJOYMENT to be had from being around women. The value is gone. They are just an expensive, painful BURDEN.
Ah, well. Enough. I'm off to eat a pizza, and watch re-runs of Cheers.
Minus a wife, thank you very much.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Correction:
That should say INABILITY to admit wrongdoing. Sorry for the confusion fo what appeared to be an insane remark.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Men are the Silent Victims in the Sex War...
Doris Lessing: 'The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests'
Doris Lessing is another Erin Pizzey, another Madhu Kishwar who is disillusioned with what femin...
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Trent, that is the happiest possible outcome. When societies collapse, war and terrorism often come and take a terrible toll upon the people caught in the middle. The invasion underway now is just the vanguard of a invasion force that will either displace or eliminate the citizens already here. There won't be any pizza to eat or Cheers to watch when the decaying infrastructure that we depend upon fails. Our society is in the same situation a ship would be right after a torpedo exploded under the keel, it's kaput. It's doomed to go down and take a lot of people down with it.
Taras
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
My sentiments exactly!
kind regards,
MAJ
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Oh, yes, Taras. You are quite correct. We are being attacked on all sides, from within and without. And it's just beginning to gather steam. None of us will recognize the United States twenty years from now. It will most likely be an open dictatorship.
The situation with women has been USED by the powers at be to destabilize the family, and hence society. It's been very effective. The family has ceased to be a viable unit, and marriage is pointless. For men, the only wise course is to abandon ship and save your own posterior. I'm a bachelor, and am six months from total financial solvency. My house is paid for. I am independent, mobile, and free. I have no wife or family responsibilities tying me down. I can hop on a boxcar or leave the country if need be. This is, under current circumstances, the wisest course of action. I am free to run when I have to.
Such comments would have once been considered extreme, and possibly paranoid. But, people foolishly IGNORE reality. I was watching the old classic film today "The Fall of The Roman Empire". It's finally available on DVD. Quite illuminating, actually. Few people see that we are on the edge in all respects. The collapse of the family is just one symptom of a far greater problem.
Ah, well. When things get really bad, and the present food shortages become severe, I won't have to worry about providing for a woman. This will be when women can TRULY enjoy the fruits of feminism. Sometimes the sweetest revenge, if you want to call it that, takes time. In any event, women will rue the day they followed the pied-piper of feminism. It will be to their utter ruin.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
And when men don't want to marry the shrill male bashing harpies the only conclusion women can reach is that men must "fear" commitment.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
"Ah, well. When things get really bad, and the present food shortages become severe, I won't have to worry about providing for a woman. This will be when women can TRULY enjoy the fruits of feminism. Sometimes the sweetest revenge, if you want to call it that, takes time. In any event, women will rue the day they followed the pied-piper of feminism. It will be to their utter ruin."
It's really a shame it even has to come to that too. There are women out there who want a man to take care of them, and are willing to be a good wife. But again, the stakes are high and the gamble is harsh. When the economy fails, will we see more women come out of the woodwork and offers themselves as "good wives" so that they will be secured in their futures?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Trent, Teknikid,
I'ts very un-fortunate that all women are held in the same catagory as the neo gender feminist mouthpieces that we see on our television screens, and hear their hysterics over the radio's.
The twisted sisters and their male lapdogs are to blame, but the question is how does one seperate the wheat from the chaff???
I personally do not have the answer, so by default, I to, just stay away from them.
I have been falselly accussed of rape, and have witnessed first hand the feminist perversion of our courts.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
You know, Teknikid, not to be too judgemental, but I have come to the conclusion that women are masters of deception. The "Chameleon Syndrome" as Shannon refers to it in "The Predatory Female". They can be anything that the script requires. Just how sincere they are is open to debate.
But, as has been pointed out, the risk with women is too high and under the best circumstances, it's just not worth it. Women aren't fun anymore. At least that's my conclusion. I enjoy time by myself, or with my bachelor friends far more than I ever enjoyed the company of women. The last woman I was involved with had me apologizing for practically everything. It just got old. I wasn't even married to her, and she tried to bury me in guilt. My dog never tries to make me feel guilty. Maybe that's why they say a dog is man's best friend?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I don't think you can effectively separate the wheat from the chaff because all I see is the chaff. I have spent years trying to find a woman, that doesn't harbor any resentments towards men. I have failed to find one. Even when I think I'm getting close, a woman inevitably drops her guard and spews forth some sort of anti-male comment. The anti-male hysteria is too pervasive at all levels of society. Few, if any women have escaped it's influence. The kind of June Cleaver wife we all desired has gone the way of the Dodo bird. It's just gone. Over. Kaput.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
It's obvious many of us had awful experiences with women. I do honestly believe there are women out there who would make good companions/wives, but finding them is the tough part. Unfortunately, the man-bashing and wallet-draining ones have given even the good ones a bad name. So it's really no wonder we men cannot trust women or marriage in general.
As I kept reading updates to this thread, it occurred to me that there was once a time when I was depserate to have a wife and children, because otherwise life was passing me by in my 20s and 30s. Now, I'm really okay with staying single. I still wish I could be a dad, but I'd rather not be a single dad. Desperation has vaporized.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I've just been fooled by so many bad women, and I've narrowly escaped disaster one too many times. Maybe there are good women. I don't know. I just don't think I've ever met one. I wouldn't know how to react if I ever met an-honest-to-goodness women who wasn't obese, angry, divorced, Std-infested, non-bisexual, kind, sweet, polite, non-feminist, honest.....you get my point. At some point I just gave up and relegated them all to the garbage dump. I didn't want it this way.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Trent of Birmingham Says "Maybe there are good women. I don't know. I just don't think I've ever met one."
I'm sorry Trent, but that statement is just nuts--GS
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Tim says "It is beyond dispute that very, very few men were noticing the male bashing until a relatively short time ago, and it's due to the Internet."
I doubt that only very few men were noticing it until recently. I think on some level more people have been aware of it for some time. It is just that few men have bothered to do anything about it because they assume that no-one will take them seriously or that they will be seen as a whacko extremist.
All the Internet has done is provided some forums for men to discuss these issues without having to go through the gatekeepers of the lace curtain press.
The other problem is that many people who are aware of it believe that men deserve it because men are really to blame for all the worlds ills.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Trent of Birmingham Says:
"The kind of June Cleaver wife we all desired has gone the way of the Dodo bird."
IMHO, you should beware of the "June Cleaver" type, that is, if you are refering to a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home wife. Sorry ladies, but given our current divorce laws, that is an open invitation to financial disaster for any man. Remember 50% of all marriages end in divorce and 70% of these are initiated by women, so you do the math. IF you want to be involved with someone , pick someone who has a good career and makes an income similar or better than yours.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Dave Says:
"IF you want to be involved with someone , pick someone who has a good career and makes an income similar or better than yours."
In other words... date as if you were a woman.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
"In other words... date as if you were a woman."
Or in some of our cases, don't bother dating at all.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Jason Says:
"In other words... date as if you were a woman."
Exactly!!!
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Teknikid Says:
"Or in some of our cases, don't bother dating at all."
Nothing wrong with that either, if that's your choice.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Pankaj says "Men DO NOT want to fight the women (including me) and most are reluctant to fight anything that claims to be representative of women (e.g. feminism). Most women do not realize on their own (its so easy not to even see it) that they are bashing, vilifying and denigrating men. The "can't we just get along attitude" of men towards women has allowed feminists (the dogmatic kind) to fracture, rupture and corrode the strong but susceptible part of the human society."
I think you are right that many women often don't even realise that they are putting men down. But there is a strong tendency for women to talk down to men, and it has become deeply entrenched in the culture. Often when I have been dealing with women in negotitations they tend to assume that because you are a guy, you must be stupid and they can pull the wool over your eyes. Part of the problem is that women's attitudes are seldom questioned.
As for whether men will fight back, it is clear that most don't want to. But I think this will ultimately be irrelevant anyway. The current feminist era cannot last forever simply because the policies that feminists promote are unsustainable both socially and economically. In addition, the success of feminism has been dependent on suppressing the truth on many matters. You can only suppress the truth for so long before reality bites you on the ass.
Sometimes you have to burn the village to save it. It is only when the status quo becomes completely intolerable that people are willing to accept the need for change. The current feminist era will pass. But it will be a difficult transition period.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I was cool with the article until this: Lessing claimed that much of the "great energy" whipped up by feminism had "been lost in hot air and fine words when we should have been concentrating on changing laws.
Feminists have been changing laws at the expense of men. It is a very scary mentality, this, police state concept. Feminists go right for the jugular. Forget compromise, forget negotiations, go right after Federal lawmakers and pressure them to pass legislation that will "Force" society to do your bidding.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I was aware of male bashing before i even knew what the internet was.
I don't know if men would not fight the current establishment if they weren't so ignorant. There are many men that do not even know Glenn's name. Also, a lot of the men that I've talked to do not want to believe that things have gone so rotten between the sexes. Ignorance is bliss...
What is really funny, is that women prove what many men say about them all the time. Some people may think that people like Marc Rudov are unreasonable, but I've experienced what he speaks of many times. Women prove Marc and others correct everyday.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I am so tired of all misandry.
The western world is a bad place for men.
Will this ever change?
I wonder if in the east men are better considerated.
In China boys learn martial arts.
In Sweden boys learn to play with dolls.
What will the future holds for men in america?
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
It should be pointed out that the Lessing article was written in 2001.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
"Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war."
Trent of Birmingham reckons...
"How many of us, if we saw a baby crying by itself in the mall, would run over to see what was wrong?"
Ive done this twice in the last few months and no-one freaked out and called me a child molester- i will admit however, that it crossed my mind that they might, so you're not completely wrong.
"Personally, I would quietly walk the other way and leave the kid to fate."
What, a fate like being kidnapped or molested?
"I don't think you can effectively separate the wheat from the chaff because all I see is the chaff"
And that is your problem- all you see is the chaff. God knows im the first man here to tar all the feminists with the same brush, for most of them are indeed bad people, but to spread the vitriol to the entire female sex is the sign of a man who has forgotten to take his medication.
"I wouldn't know how to react if I ever met an-honest-to-goodness women who wasn't obese, angry, divorced, Std-infested, non-bisexual, kind, sweet, polite, non-feminist, honest.....you get my point.'
I might if it wasnt so muddled- you seem to be complaining about positives as well as negatives "
"At some point I just gave up and relegated them all to the garbage dump. I didn't want it this way."
For the comfort of both yourself and the female sex i i hope you didnt throw them into the same garbage dump that they threw you into.
""The kind of June Cleaver wife we all desired has gone the way of the Dodo bird."
Yes, that's what we all desire, a woman who takes half our income in return for 20-30 hours of house work while we work 40-50 outside the home. How women were ever conned into thinking they had the worse part of that deal is beyond my simple intellect. In the Feminine Mystique Friedan actually claims American housewives were developing bloody blisters on their arms as a symptom of "the problem that has no name" Didnt women stop and think "Gee, do any of the women i know have bloody blisters?" Apparently not. Here's why it didnt have a name, ladies, because it wasnt real. Women working outside the home has made the deal better for us, not worse.
"I was watching the old classic film today "The Fall of The Roman Empire". It's finally available on DVD. Quite illuminating, actually. "
Perhaps you should take your view of reality from documentaries and books rather than from "old classic films". I suppose if you'd watched the George Pal version of War of the Worlds you would now be hiding in your basement, wide eyed and nervously clutching a shotgun.
Doris said...
"'You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."
No wonder boys outdo girls in school, the arrogant little bastards are overflowing with confidence and self-esteem.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Glenn, your asylum is being taken over by lunatics.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
i'm tired of the liberal media, liberals, democrats, and feminists....i vote republican
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
would you go on a femist site and say the same thing?
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
to michael claymore
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
John, im not sure what you meant, im guessing you were asking if i would go to a feminist website and say it was being taken over by the lunatics. The answer is that no i would not as the feminist websites have already been taken over by the lunatics - for them the process is over. Besides, take heart, Glenn apparently thinks im one of the said lunatics so we're all in good company.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
MichaelClaymore,
One has to keep in mind that "The Feminist Mystique" was written by a rude hate-mongering pig, who wouldn't have had time to sit around and complain if someone had not already built her a castle of leisure to live in.
I saw somewhere that "The Myth of Male Power" was to the men's movement what T.F.M. did for the women's movement. I hope Warren Farrell would cringe at that terrible comparison. One is a hate-mongering diatribe-rant of a sick overpriveleged woman; the book is designed to tap into most women's natural anger at men.
Where as Farrell's book is reasonable, and cites lots of facts based on research.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:15 am
"One has to keep in mind that "The Feminist Mystique" was written by a rude hate-mongering pig, who wouldn't have had time to sit around and complain if someone had not already built her a castle of leisure to live in."
Perhaps, but what makes you think i wasnt already aware of that possibilty? You seem to have read a post different to the one i wrote.
"the book is designed to tap into most women's natural anger at men."
Natural anger at men? What a lousy survival mechanism that would be, to be naturally angry at the people who protect you from all those nasty bears and tigers. Any evidence for this "natural" anger?
May 4th, 2008 at 12:53 am
I'm not sure why you're taking offense at my entry. It wasn't intended to disagree with anything in your comment - I saw a reference to Friedan's book so just thought I'd make a comment on it.
As far as evidence for the natural anger - I have "over five decades of life experience." (Same life experience as you and everyone else on this board. Let's not pretend.)
May 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am
MichaelClaymore:
Exactly who are you attacking and why?
May 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Perhaps one could say this anger is "learned throught socialization".
May 4th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Doris makes similar statements when she did an interview for an Australian news program.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s390537.htm
May 4th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Norman L said - "I'm not sure why you're taking offense at my entry. It wasn't intended to disagree with anything in your comment - I saw a reference to Friedan's book so just thought I'd make a comment on it."
Sorry, Norman L, my mistake. I didnt take offense at your comment , i misunderstood it. I thought you 'd interpreted my comment as praising Friedan's work rather than simply wondering how the hell women ever bought her argument.
As for the anger, yes socialization explains it better than nature.
Digital Dreamer, who i am attacking and why was made clear in the post before the "lunatics" comment. It doesnt include you, but since you see fit to bring it up, here goes... No im just kidding.
Maybe im becoming more sensitive to irrationality but it seems to me that in the last few weeks we've been inundated with nutters, hence my lunatics comment. My sensitivity to all the bull has been further heightened by the numbers of people who protested "Bad Dads". I had no idea this place got so many readers, i had assumed it was maybe a couple of hundred per day at best, but as it turns out the nutters are standing on a much higher platform than i had assumed. All the more reason to shoot them down.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Sorry i misunderstood you Glenn. Given how over-the-top the "Sound and Fury" aspect of my posts can get it i assumed you'd come to the conclusion i had lost my mind.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:43 am
I think one could say that hormones play at least some part - say, a combination of women's particular emotions being in part governed by chemical processes, along with men/relationships being a major part (a focus) of their lives. So one result is anger focused at men.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:15 am
ya I saw this on ABC TV (Australia) about 7 years ago.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s390537.htm
I have it on tape also.
Interview with Doris Lessing
Broadcast: 24/10/2001
Reporter: Jennifer Byrne
Since the early 60s, when Doris Lessing wrote the famous Golden Notebook, she has been hailed as one of the founding mothers of feminism. Ms Lessing is now 81, still writing and still making waves. Her latest book, The Sweetest Dream looks at what wars do to families and friendships ..
Jennifer Byrne talked to Doris Lessing in London, and began by asking if she thought people these days understood what war really means.
Transcript
Lessing: No, I don't. I think there's a new generation who's only seen war in television programmes and war films, and they.... I don't know why war always looks glamorous... but it is, so.... they have no idea at all what they're talking about. This is a very good scenario for self-righteousness and for slogans and it makes my blood run cold because I"ve lived through it more than once. And ... it's very powerful and it takes people over... and then people stop thinking. They just chant slogans. And this is what's so frightening about it.
Byrne: Mmm. I mean, you write very caustically about the power of the 'ism'... you know, whether it's the communism... feminism... unfocussed idealism... journalism... Do you think that an 'ism' is an intrinsically suspicious thing?
Lessing: Yes, I do rather. I think we're always making categories and fitting people and things into it that don't necessarily belong there at all. As for the idealism... you know, Hitler was an idealist. Have you ever heard his plans for a thousand-year reich?... Mussolini... and I've no doubt at all that good old Comrade Stalin had moments of idealism - not very many. But as for Lenin of course, that old murderer...
Byrne: Well why do we want them so much, do you think?
Lessing: Oh, you see, we love powerful people unfortunately. We do. We do... we love powerful, strong men - or a lot of people do who haven't actually experienced them.
Byrne: Is it your disappointment in communism that has made you suspicious of all isms and all ideologies?
Lessing: It certainly helped. In the last part of the fifties... communism was beginning to... it was falling down like the Twin Towers in New York - before our very eyes - and that was very very extraordinary to watch, and to live through.
Byrne: The most loathsome character, I think, in your new book is the communist, who is a very sound comrade but an absolute pig of a person.
Lessing: Well you know, there were an awful lot of them around.
Byrne: You knew some? You knew many.
Lessing: Of course! I was married to one for a time. The communists... little mini commissares.. they were everywhere. And they were all like that - they were unbelievable dogmatic.
Byrne: Did you know that at the time, or this is like looking back?
Lessing: Oh yes, I did know. You know, I had to fight my way out. You try being married to 150% communist. It really is something... but don't forget...
Byrne: Is it getting harder to speak your mind, or easier, do you think?
Lessing: Easier. No-one's going to put you into prison at the moment, for speaking your mind ... or banning you. Luckily I'm not a Muslim in this country - they're having a bad time.
Byrne: Yet, when you spoke your mind about feminism, the cry that went up... the shouting... you were an evil woman, Doris Lessing.
Lessing: Yes, I know. Well, half of what I was supposed to have said, I didn't say... but people love a chance to be righteously indignant, and I gave them that.
Byrne: So what did you actually say?
Lessing: What I actually said... what I was on about, was this culture where men automatically rubbished. I really hate it. We now have a culture where it's a part of the language... advertisements... radio programmes... the putting down of men. And I said it was time this came to an end. But I don't think it was that that made people furious.
Byrne: Well, that was the thing that made the front page in Australia, I have to say.
Lessing: Really?
Byrne: Yes. It was that you had said that the most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest, most intelligent man and no-one protests.
Lessing: Exactly.. I did say that....
Byrne: It is what you said?
Lessing: And I stand by it. Absolutely. You know, when I was young... and I was this brash girl - I was always tackling some man, saying 'why are you patronising me? I'm not some stupid little woman.' And they never had any idea what I was talking about. It was a part of the culture. 'What's she on about?' Well, now women do it - and don't even know that they're doing it. And I don't see why we should become as bad as they were, and some of them still are. I find it shocking. The thing that... when it really got to me... I was in a school, and I saw a... nine or ten years old.... history... and there was this feminist teacher telling these kids that wars throughout history were because men were naturally violent. Now you can imagine the scene - the little girls, so smug and pleased with themselves, and the boys cowering and embarrassed. And I thought this is going on through our schools. No wonder the little boys are doing so badly in school, if they've got women who put them down all the time.
Byrne: Why do you think... what is the motive that you perceive why feminists are putting men down... why they're treating them in a cruel inferior way?
Lessing: Well they're been put down for so long, so they're getting they're own back... and it's simple revenge, a lot of it... And also I don't think they realise how very unpleasant they are. What a lot of bitches have been created by the women's movement. It really is frightening. But you know, the thing that I really was on about in Edinburgh... I said that the whole of the 1960's movement had been a sexual revolution. It hadn't really done the situation of women much good....with all great fun, God knows. But when I was a girl, I said... I had a role model - a word that had not been created then - and she used to say to us, 'girls, go out and get yourself equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity... and good nurseries, and then you will be equal with men.' Now, it is a long time in the women's movement since any of them have thought about changing laws... or fighting... boring old fighting, and committed. Well we don't do that any more. We think it's absolutely wonderful if some girl has an exciting sexual life - and jolly good luck to her - but it doesn't change anything.
Byrne: I must say there's a lovely moment in your book, when you talk about a magazine editor who gets furious when she's told that the female is the one that transmits malaria, and she says 'the shits!... the fascists... this is terrible!'
Lessing: I didn't invent that.
Byrne: That's true?
Lessing: Absolutely.
Byrne: What, she thought it was actually a slander on the gender?
Lessing: Exactly.
Byrne: Okay, so you're saying the women are winning the gender war - or have won the gender war?
Lessing: I don't know if it is a victory. It is the kids I'm concerned with.... Boys, who are having a very bad time... you know, the men I think are having a bad time, but they can fight for themselves... but little kids can't, you know. I think women might remember that... they might have a maternal instinct here or there and try and look after the little boys.
Byrne: If you didn't have a son, would you feel it so deeply, do you think?
Lessing: I've got a feeling I would, you know. I think so, yes.
Byrne: Why is it do you think the feminists have been so keen to adopt you as one of their spokespeople anyway? Does it go right back to the....
Lessing: It was the Golden Notebook. That's why. That was read as a feminism tract, when it first came out.
Byrne: And it wasn't?
Lessing: Well I didn't think it was... because I see it as an historical document.
Byrne: Is there an ism or an ideology that you hold to now... at eighty-one?
Lessing: Well, the only one I hold to is that people should think before they shout slogans.
Byrne: Whatever the slogan?
Lessing: That's all. It's a.... and you think that might be a small demand, but it isn't. Because look how easily people start shouting slogans.
Byrne: As you get older, and one assumes wiser....
Lessing: Oh, don't assume that.
Byrne: No? Not so?
Lessing: No. No.
Byrne: Is it harder to be tolerant of the foolishness and the naivety of the young?
Lessing: No, it's not harder ... it's just that you understand it so well, since you've done it all yourself. And it's a pity that they repeat our follies, but apparently that is the plan of life. God knows why nobody ever learns from the preceding generation - but they don't.
Byrne: But isn't that part of being young? Being careless of history?
Lessing: Well we don't have to admire it, do we?
Byrne: You were quoted recently as saying 'writing is something I have to do' - At eighty-one, is it still?
Lessing: I'm just a story teller. I have to... I have to. I'm very unhappy when I'm not writing. I need to write. I think it's possibly some kind of psychological balancing mechanism - but that's not only true for writers ... anybody. I think that we're always... just a step away from lunacy anyway, and we need something to keep us balanced.
Byrne: So this is your sanity?
Lessing: Exactly.
Byrne: Will you retain it... I mean, will you keep - not the sanity, the writing?
Lessing: Yes, I'll go on. As long as I can.
Byrne: You were offered a damehood - to become a dame. Why did you knock it back?
Lessing: A dame of the British Empire, right. I am a good colonial by upbringing... I hated all that..... and also I spent a good part of my youth trying to undo the British Empire. And there are very few more unimpressive sights than some old person licking the hand that it used to bite. So, no... I said no. So then they said would I like to be a Companion of Honour, which I said yes to because I'm not called anything. I mean, how would you like to be called a dame? Like a pantomime.
Byrne: Somewhat unlikely. Dorris Lessing, thank you very much. Thank you.
Lessing: Thank you. I've enjoyed it.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Glenn Sacks Says:
"I'm sorry Trent, but that statement is just nuts"
MichaelClaymore Says:
"Maybe im becoming more sensitive to irrationality but it seems to me that in the last few weeks we've been inundated with nutters, hence my lunatics comment."
These guys posted what they felt. We may not agree with them, but given the current decline in marriage rates and the current rate of family dissolution in western culture, it seems to me that SOMEBODY had better wake up and listen to them. Do you honestly believe that there are only a few guys who feel like this? What do you think happens when young males and females grow up being fed this continuous anti-male nonsense in schools, news, TV and movies? Does anyone expect this type of environment to foster trust and rational thinking about the other gender?
The signs are all around us that there are more than just a handful of young men who distrust women. Consider the following facts from:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-12-census-marriage_N.htm?csp=34
"Among men ages 20-29, 73% said they had never been married in 2006, compared with 64% in 2000. For women, 62.2% had never married in 2006, compared with 53.4% six years earlier."
"The data also show the percentage of those marrying in their 20s continues to decline."
Ironically, I think the following quote from a gay female sums it up best:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/03/gay-marriage-what-for/
"Our divorce, custody and alimony laws make it easy and profitable for women to abandon their spouses. Men are becoming more and more reluctant to marry. Magazines like Cosmopolitan try to blame this on male "immaturity", but it's more likely they've just been paying attention to what happens to other men who tie the knot. Seeing their buddies impoverished, evicted from their houses, and only allowed to see their children on alternate weekends, what man wouldn't hesitate to marry? Attention, Cosmo, here is the answer to the mystery you're always pondering, the reason men won't commit: because women don't commit."
Instead of just dismissing them as nuts, maybe we (men and women) should focus on proving them wrong by working to establish a society that truly promotes equal rights AND equal responsibilities for all of our citizens.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I'm not terribly offended if Glenn or some other men consider me nuts. I'm hardly that, and such childish name-calling does more to detract from the name callers, not me. That's okay. If my views of women seem extreme, it's only because of my experiences with women. I certainly never wanted it this way. Yet, I challenge anyone to dispute the information I present. Rather than call names, a tool of the feminists and just about any other special interest group from the left, try debating issues. Keep in mind that men with lofty views of women are the one's who put us all in this position in the first place, not just the women.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:29 am
It's not likely that most men WILL listen, Dave. Most men are willing to wallow in their complacency, which is why we have the problems we have today. It's not just the feminists. Men just sit there hoping the problem will go away. Maybe I am too extreme. I don't claim to be perfect. I just know that something is seriously wrong, and sitting by and worrying about offending women are weak men is not going to get the job done. Possibly men who seem too extreme like myself are what's needed to make up for forty years of weak men sitting on their behinds while feminists helped destroy marriage. You've got to admit nothing is being done any other way.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
"I'm not terribly offended if Glenn or some other men consider me nuts. I'm hardly that, and such childish name-calling does more to detract from the name callers, not me. That's okay. If my views of women seem extreme, it's only because of my experiences with women."
He only said you were nuts in relation to your comment that you have never met a good woman, which was an extreme and sweeping statement. If a Muslim said 'I have never met a good non-Muslim', well we would all assume he was an extremist. Right?
It's also a weak argument to defend such views on the grounds that you have had bad experiences with women. It is no different to women who have had a bad relationship with a man and then use this to justify villifying all men. If you are going to make judgements about any group, it is only fair to base them on broader observations.
"Maybe I am too extreme. I don't claim to be perfect. I just know that something is seriously wrong, and sitting by and worrying about offending women are weak men is not going to get the job done."
Your argument is essentially black and white. Either you are a fire-breathing extremist or a pussycat. There is no middle-ground anywhere.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
i am 59 and i say this. most women i have known in my life were or still are manipulative. that is true of the women in my family and families of close friends as well. at times, its difficult to ascertain because women are so "good" at it, but its there. day and night, every day of every week of every month etc etc. most men don't see it because most men are trusting and feel the need to do the right thing as much as possible. our society must implode and be rebuilt from the ground up. or not. no civilization has ever survived with women as the designer of the social construct. this one, by all appearances, won't either. what a great line...."chinese boys learn martial arts, swedish boys learn how to play with dolls"'.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Trent of Birmingham Says:
"Keep in mind that men with lofty views of women are the one's who put us all in this position in the first place, not just the women."
You just hit the nail on the head, Trent! We ALL bear some responsibility for the current sorry state of affairs.
As I have previously stated, if you define true feminism as a desire to promote equal rights AND equal responsibilities for men and women, then I support this 100%. What I dispise are the hypocrites who feel that they have to destroy the lives and reputations of men to improve their own position.
If we blindly blame feminism as the source of all of the current gender related problems in our society, then we are no better than the feminist "nuts" who blame all of society's problems on some imaginary boogey man like the "patriarchy." IMHO, the true problem lies in the ridiculous notion of "chivalry" that so many in our society, men and women, still cling to. Instead of expecting men and women to behave as equals, our society still expects men to be the responsible ones and women to be dependent upon men. Does anyone doubt this?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Feminists state that women in an abusive relationsip don't leave beause:
1. they've grown up to believe that the abuse is a normal part of the relationship. Their father did it to their mother etc, so it's all they've ever known.
2. they don't believe that anyone will believe them and will blame them in some way for the abuse.
These reasons apply to emotional and psychological abuse just as much as to physical abuse and, as Glenn has pointed out before, at least with physical abuse there are bruises and scars as evidence. Feminists also say that women are economically trapped in an abusive relationship. Men can be trapped in an abusive relationship because its the only way in which they will ever see (and possibly be able to protect) their kids.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Trent of Birmingham says: "The last woman I was involved with had me apologizing for practically everything. It just got old."
For me, that is something that has been a hurtful disappointment in most of my relationships with women. Their behavior toward their husbands/boyfriends seems to stem from some sort of insecurity. I, literally, feel like I am going insane after a while. I don't know why one human being feels the need to try to control another. If anyone on here can enlighten me as to what's occuring psychologically in women that do this, I'd be interested to read what you have to say.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Snakes are beautiful, amazing creatures. The majority of snakes are non-venomous. However, anyone unfamiliar with snakes MUST handle all of them as though they were venomous, if they are to stay safe. Women are beautiful. The majority of them are decent and loving. However .....
The attitude of many chivalrists who post here (or who run this blog) is apparently that someone who handles snakes as though they are potentially poisonous -- or who avoid snakes altogether -- must "hate" snakes, even if they have been bitten before. I call BS.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Trent of Birmingham I just love the way you speak. Your eyes are so open to reality just like mine. I have absolutely no illusions about an invincible economy, I no longer believe in women and a friend of feminism is an enemy of mine. I don't believe that protests alone are going to solve much. I believe that vigilantes are going to be needed to get our rights back. And you are so right when you said that feminism will be the ruin of women. I once made a remark that feminism can only thrive during prosperous times and hasn't really been put to the test. Well our national economic meltdown is that test and feminism is going to fail miserably. I predicted that thousands of women who rubbished their husbands during the good times are going to be rushing back in droves as more hard times arrive. I hope those men tell the worthless vampires to go to hell and seek help from their feminist goddesses. The feminist pied piper led millions of lemmings off the cliff.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
"I predicted that thousands of women who rubbished their husbands during the good times are going to be rushing back in droves as more hard times arrive. I hope those men tell the worthless vampires to go to hell and seek help from their feminist goddesses."
Amen, Stephen! They wanted to be single again and do everything on their own, fine. Let's see how they manage when things get real tough.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Stephen said: "I predicted that thousands of women who rubbished their husbands during the good times are going to be rushing back in droves as more hard times arrive. I hope those men tell the worthless vampires to go to hell and seek help from their feminist goddesses."
You know what I think will happen Stephen--Men will act like like complete fools and actually feel grateful to have the women treat them fairly. That doesn't make me happy to say. It is actually very depressing. But, I see evidence all the time. Men sell out one another ALL THE TIME to please women. I'm not sure how much of it is genetic or how much is socialization. If anybody doesn't believe me, I suggest an experiment. Take out one of your cute open-minded female friends tonight. Tell her you wanna try something out. Tell her you want her to slap you in the face in public, 3 or 4 times. Tell her that, in response, you'll give her a light slap on the face. Tell her you just wanna see people's reactions. Then, when you are in the hospital or at home nursing your wounds because 3 guys jumped you, you'll understand just how conditioned men are to sell each other down the river.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Where is the danger in girls, fat with complacency and conceit and the little boys sitting crumpled, while the subject was violence? Violence itself can be defined in more than thousand ways, but in this class violence probably was not defined as being complacent and let the others do the dirty job, if needed. It seems that violence was deconstructed as acting instead of waiting and persuading others - to do the action. In terms of guilt it would boil down to the question of who is guilty, the judge or the hangman.
In her latest novel, The Cleft, Doris Lessing describes the danger of placing the burden on the actor in a imaginative way.
The real danger lies in the possibility that the girls actually succeed in destroying the capability of the boys to act later on in their life. That would leave us with complacent women and non-acting men. And not only non-acting, but as part of the process not inventing new and thereby sometimes destroying new actions when new and not old actions are needed. For instance if the ‘old actions’ don’t work anymore. Besides being rather boring for the girls that would probably pose the greatest danger for our society.
Unfortunately we are not yet in the position that we can afford that kind of luxurious complacency.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I doubt 98% of women in America have even heard of Doris Lessing. That is, unless she's been mentioned in People or Elle magazine.
Did Doris really have to venture into a classroom to realize the amount of anti-male sentiment in western Culture? When was the last time she turned on the TV?
May 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
my grandmother often speaks contemptuously of my grandfather, and they've been married for thirty-something years. Who would want to suffer that fate?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Glen,
Is there any reason why my posts are getting deleted?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Beste--nothing of yours has been deleted. I did just fish one of your posts out of the spam blocker--GS
May 4th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Stephen Says:
"I no longer believe in women and a friend of feminism is an enemy of mine."
That's too bad, because you might agree with what some of them have to say on certain subjects.
Can you guess who made the following statements?
"...how unfair it is that usually the financial responsibility for dates is on guys... I would think men would object simply
on the grounds that it's unfair; why should they have to pay the bill?.."
"If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men."
"Providing shared responsibility for children, by law, is not only fair to men and more civilized for children, it's also to women's advantage. Until women and men share parenting, there is little possibility they'll be able to share political, intellectual, economic and social goals."
Surprise!!!
It was Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977.
1972 - I am woman, hear me roar!
2008 - I am NOW, hear me whine!
May 5th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Trent reckons...
" If my views of women seem extreme, it's only because of my experiences with women. I certainly never wanted it this way. Yet, I challenge anyone to dispute the information I present."
What information would that be, Trent? You presented no information, only opinion. Even if you are the most unlucky man in the world as regards the "fair sex" it still doesnt justify implying that they are all bad. It only justifies applying such negativity to some (hell, maybe even most) of them, but if you act as if they are all worthy of being "consigned to the dump".
"Rather than call names, a tool of the feminists and just about any other special interest group from the left, try debating issues."
Dont take the Ad Hominems personally, they are their just to stop me falling asleep. As for debating the issues thats difficult with a man who admits that he sees only the chaff and yet still wants to be treated as if his views have something close to objectivity.
"Keep in mind that men with lofty views of women are the one's who put us all in this position in the first place, not just the women."
I agree, and if you werent new here youd know i have no lofty opinions of women- i have on at least one ocasion expressed my view that the female sex contains more naturally violent individuals than ours does. If that's a pedestal its a pretty low one.
"Most men are willing to wallow in their complacency, which is why we have the problems we have today. It's not just the feminists. Men just sit there hoping the problem will go away. "
Thats very unfair to men. If complacency was the problem we'd never fight for anything yet we do- we fight for freedom, we fight for family, hell, some white men even died helping American blacks get their rights. Doesnt seem too complacent to me. The problem is we've all been taught that to fight for ourselves as men reduces our manliness, and since thats a big part of a man's concept of himself few men are willing to risk it.
"Possibly men who seem too extreme like myself are what's needed to make up for forty years of weak men sitting on their behinds while feminists helped destroy marriage."
I agree feminists have destroyed marriage but again this is unfair to men- its not a matter of "weakness". We all know McCain is a tough old bastard, but do you think he's going to declare himself a "Men's Rights Activist" any time soon?
And Trent, when Stephen agrees with you, keep in mind he does so in between attempts to figure out the exact date of the Apocalypse.
Dave, im not married, have never been foolish enough to get married, and wont be getting married unless the morons who run the western patriarchies change the laws regarding divorce and child custody. Its not an objection to marriage or anything else that gets my goat, only the rampant irrationality of some of the new-comers. And what they feel is as irrelevant as what the feminists feel- i want reason and facts, not feelings.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Oh, and Dave, i believe the name of that song was "I Am Chicken, Hear Me Squawk."
I'll bet this one gets taken down.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:11 am
How did that clown -- Kim Gandy -- become NOW's current president?
I just do not get it.
They claim to have 500,000 paying members, but have never published a membership list or verified this claim.
And even if that figure was true, it's about 2% of women.
I suspect NOW is actually about 500 women married to rich guys and they are just bored and need a distraction from their ordinary privileged lives.
Some Ph.D. student needs to do a thesis on this mystery.
Preferably a women's studies major.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:30 am
roy,
I'm sure the student would have no trouble getting 500,000 "valid" signatures, thus "proving" the claim is true. And, since not much scholarship is involved in that process, it is well-suited to a women's studies major.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:11 am
MichaelClaymore Says:
"Its not an objection to marriage or anything else that gets my goat, only the rampant irrationality of some of the new-comers. And what they feel is as irrelevant as what the feminists feel- i want reason and facts, not feelings."
Well said. I agree 100% with the reason and facts part. I just didn't want to see things deteriorate into a name calling contest like something from that site by those who are Discontented with Masculinity.
"I Am Chicken, Hear Me Squawk."
Would that be the 1970's version or the current rendition?
May 5th, 2008 at 11:22 am
First and formost thank you Doris, YOU are a TRUE feminist and one that I can easily support due to the fairness of your cause.
Now for the issues at hand:
These quotes are the epitome of what is and has happened. "Cowed" is exactly right with one addition a misdirected and conditioned sense of chivalry that exacerbates this situation. If a man does stand up for himself, he not only has to worry about being berated by the woman he is taking to but risks the "gratuitous slap" that he is not allow to respond to, and all the other women in ear shot jumping on the band wagon, plus the men in the area when that hear HER becoming loud, somehow associate that the man is in the wrong. Furthermore, the men will tell the other man just attempting to present his case to stop or be "politely" [sarcasm] be asked to leave.
b
bernies blogs
May 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
So, Bernie ---
You are describing a kind of gender totalitariansim?
May 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Exactly. Chivalry is the problem just as much as feminism is.
Without Chivalry, feminism not only would not, but COULD NOT exist. As long as chivalry does exist, Feminism, in some form or another, will. And why will it exist? Because as long as it is in women's advantage to manipulate men to treat them better than equals (always) and there exists a ability to apply pressure to them to do so (chivalry), then it will be done.
We need to call for an end to chivalry as much as we need to call for an end to gender feminism.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I appreciate the input from all sides. Life is a learning process, hopefully, and I ponder the comments made by men who agree with men as well as those who disagree with me. Hopefully this is a sign of maturity. Few women seem capable of such introspection.
Let me say this. Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, ponder this. Why was the feminist machine able to roll to such power so quickly and all but exterminate, dare I say, normal heterosexual relations? It was the EXTREMIST faction of the feminist movement that was willing to declare war and attack with a vengeance. They were WRONG in most respects, but they didn't sit around wringing their hands trying to REASON with men. They attacked, and viciously. Most of what they said was not true, and their goals were hardly pure, but they attacked unmercifully. And relentlessly.
Do you see my point? If we hope to even SURVIVE this onslaught, we must use the same methods. I think it might be too late already, as I don't believe for a minute that the orchestrations of the feminist movement are by chance. Hardly. So, we are fighting much greater powers than merely some angry, hairy lesbians that hate men. Few men are even willing to discuss the problem, and virtually none even try and do anything about it. They're too addicted to sex and chivalry. When a malcontent comes along and shouts for action, he is inevitably shot down by the men he tries to help. So, YES, I do blame men for much- no, MOST- of the predicament we are in. Gone are the days when we had men who were willing to take a stand and fight for what they believe in.
So, like me or not, your future depends on whether or not you're willing to take action. You fight fire with fire, not with talk.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Dave, I guess I should say that I don't believe in any man or woman, only the Lord. I had high hopes for feminism 35 years ago. I bought all the snake oil and believed that when women got what they wanted that the world would become a kinder, gentler place. Boy was I a sucker. The women turned out to be no different from male tyrants who gain power and abuse it. Feminism brings out the worst in women and they're in no hurry to act civilized or relinquish any of their undeserved power. So I'm not asking women's permission to get my rights back. I'm forcibly taking them back and taking no prisoners. I know what kind of monster I'm up against. I also don't believe in feminism because women were not created to lead men. They were created to help him. So therefore there can be no good feminism.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives. "
Unfortunately, I am reminded of my own school experiences. Things like this were not done by most teachers, but was done by a handfull of teachers. Usually about one every other year. Though I do have to admit it was about half the time trying to make me be guilty for being male and the other half the time being white. I suspect today the handfull in schools has grown and would also add in religious as the latest thing to guilt me for.
It also reminds me of a story about an elephand in the circuis. A man was wandering after the show and noticed that this huge elephant was "leashed" by a thin rope around it's leg it could easily break. He asked someone there about it and was told that was how they trained elephants. When they are young they are chined down with the strongest chains, so they will try and try to break free but can't. As they grow older the chains become smaller while they become larger, but the psycology of being unable to break free is there stronger than ever so they don't try.
With things like this being done for decades in schools the effects are easily sen around us.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Trent Says:
"If we hope to even SURVIVE this onslaught, we must use the same methods."
Except that we cannot use those same exact methods and expect to be successful.
Please keep in mind the title of this thread:
"The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests."
Men cannot use the same strategy as women to obtain equal rights in certain areas simply because at any point they can have their name dragged through the mud for having done absolutely nothing wrong... and few if any will come to a mans defense in such a situation.
The only way to combat this sort of tactic is to keep your nose as clean as possible... to be honest, fair, and rational... to constantly put your opponents on the defensive by making them justify their statements with facts and well reasoned argument... and if they fail to do so, making sure to call them on it.
By taking the high road it is at least possible for an outside observer to take a look and say to themselves "hmmm... this fellow seems to have a point... and the only thing his opposition is doing is mud slinging and manipulation"
Sure they will still seek to drag you through the mud... but if you can at least keep your head above the muck, others will see that you are a person of quality.
Stooping to their level only reinforces their belief, and societies belief, that these grievances are unjustified... because it allows them to rubbish you and appear to be correct in their assessment.
"You fight fire with fire, not with talk."
Sure, you can burn everything in sight so there is nowhere left for the fire to spread... or you can choose to fight the fire with water and limit the destruction to the areas that are already affected.
As I said in a different thread... men are not sympathetic beings... we don't naturally illicit an empathetic response like women or children do... hence our approach to achieving our goals needs to be different than those used by groups who can easily get sympathy out of others.
It is unfortunate and ironic that society has come to the following conclusions about men... if we are strong we do not require sympathy or help... and if we are weak we are not worthy of sympathy or help.
So basically as soon as you are strong enough to be worthy of assistance... society suddenly declares that you shouldn't need it... essentially men are locked out of this mechanism regardless of their status.
The way to combat this in my opinion is to focus on the fact that we deserve sympathy and help, regardless of how much others feel we may need it... because ultimately, even if they felt that we did need help... they would just tell us it was our own fault and to fix it ourselves. It's better to be considered deserving of help and demanding it, than to be considered unworthy of help and have those request completely ignored.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Michael Claymore, I'll take your apocalypse remark as an insult. I have much better things to do with my time than keeping an eye open for the end of the world. I happen to be highly intelligent and in touch with reality, which can't be said for most people. As far as hard times are concerned, a child can figure it out. Matter of fact, I'm sure that half of all Americans know the party is over, the other half naturally have their heads in the sand. What do we have to fall back on, credit cards? Let me give you a short score card:
Future entitlements such as SSI, Medical and Retirement: 50 trillion.
The public debt: More than 9 trillion.
Budget deficit: Around a trillion.
GDP: 13 trillion and shrinking.
We can't even pay the interest on the debt. So if pointing this out makes me a fanatical end of the worlder, I wear the badge with pride. A bit of advice: get out of debt.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Trent of Birmingham,
I agree with much of your last post. I think diplomacy and compromise is the first option. But, how do you compromise with zealots who can't even be relied upon to tell even the most basic truths (radical feminists)? How do you reach common ground with those that care not for humanity buy only female humanity?
I see alot of elements here I think are worth pointing out. The situation reminds me of the US dealing with Al-Queda.
I will explain my specific thoughts.
1) Men, overall, are more aggressive and powerful than women. So, like the choice the US faces, the question is not "can we win", it is "how far are we willing to go?" Let's face it (concerning US and Al-Queda), if we took away the laws of war and truly UNLEASHED our military they would reign hell on everybody and then sort the guilty out later.
2) So, there is a moral conundrum. How do we crush radical feminists without causing other collateral damage to decent, essentially "non-combatant" women. Do we even care?
3) That brings up the fact that most of the so-called "non-combatant women" are themselves less than innocent. As we consider the morality of "carpet bombing" feminists, it is fair to ask, "Why should we feel guilty? The vast majority of women who are not radical feminists have no problem with sitting back and enjoying the entitlements that radical feminists secure them as innocent men suffer.
These situatons remind of something I experience in my personal life. I am a Hispanic male myself. When I see radical Hispanic activists spewing nonsensical hate speech against Whites and taunting them because they feel, in these politically correct times, that they can get away with it, I am deeply disturbed. I think to myself, "If this hate ever truly causes White people to "lose it", we are screwed. White people have way more power in this country. Though it is right and just to stand up for ourselves, we truly don't want to have a "pissing contest" with the White people in America. So, I fight against fellow Hispanics that behave this way---whether it be in person or via letter or email. To me, women have the same responsibility. If they don't want to men to show them what the meaning of the word "backlash" truly is, they should police their own and condemn the hate-mongers among them. That's just how I feel about it. And, to top it all off, in the case of women, this hate speech and false or exaggerated claims of inequality are coming from a group that is, in effect, the favored and dominant group. Now, as my Jewish friends would say, that takes chutzpah.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Jason, I have to disagree with you. Men can get away with whatever they want! Whose going to stop us if we decide to revolt. The answer: nobody. And women would have great reason to fear a bunch of angry men who refuse to be charmed. When women realize that their feminine wiles no longer work they go into a panic because this is their main source of power. That's why I encourage men to become hardened, eschew flattery and charm and fight to take our rights back because things are getting worse every day for men as long as women are in charge or just complacent. Angry men can make big changes practically overnight.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
ChrisD-
You answered your own question. You shouldn't care about "innocent" women. Where have they been for the last forty years while men have been slowly castrated? Did they EVER jump to our defense? Not very often. Today, they reap the benefits of feminism, and whine about men who won't commit. These same "innocent women" are the first to blast men for ANY short-coming, and will gladly divorce you in a heartbeat.
Remember that large study recently done by the Barna organization, the Christian research group, that found that evangelical Christian women had the second highest rate of divorce in the U.S. It seems the more conservative and traditional a woman is, the more likely she is to divorce her husband.
Atheist and agnostics had the LOWEST divorce rate.
Go figure.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Chris D.,
While some of the political positions of many radical feminist groups is diametrically opposed to some of our positions, I think you are looking at this the wrong way.
It shouldn't be our goal to "prove" that we are right to those who subscribe to a dogmatic belief system... that sort of thing never happens.
Instead the focus should be about getting our issues heard by the general public and casting them in a cohesive and logical framework that is impossible to deny. Obtaining political access is also of critical importance as that is the most direct way of effective change.
What are are doing here is identifying what you believe to be the "enemy" and deciding that this enemy needs to be defeated... but you can't defeat an ideology by attacking that ideology.
The way to defeat an ideology is to point out it's flaws and to present a better ideology... which I think we have here.
Ultimately we shouldn't be concerned with what radical feminists think or feel except to the extent that it directly inhibits our ability to effect a positive change for boys/men in the areas of parenthood, families, relationships and society in general. It would be a much bigger blow to their belief system if we managed to get legislation passed that supported one of our key issues, than to manage to win a shouting match with them... that sort of an effort is a distraction from what the real goals should be in my opinion.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
What do our food, electricity, oil, and security forces all have in common?
They are all 90+% male dominated industries.
If those men went on strike, we would have no choice but to listen.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Jason, you've got some very good points. We DO have to be more careful, as public opinion is certainly against us. Very good point, indeed
May 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Stephen Says:
"Men can get away with whatever they want! Whose going to stop us if we decide to revolt. The answer: nobody."
That is preposterous... no one can get away with whatever they want.
As for "if we decide to revolt"... firstly I think the goal should be to avoid revolution. Secondly, who is going to revolt?... you?... you and a few friends?
Because the entire male populace certainly isn't going to just up and go for a revolution when they have more to lose than they have to gain.
Believe it or not we live a pretty good life in the first world... I don't think you'd be as quick to give up access to food, shelter, and electricity as you seem to be declaring here.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Demonspawn Says:
"What do our food, electricity, oil, and security forces all have in common?
They are all 90+% male dominated industries.
If those men went on strike, we would have no choice but to listen."
Society would also collapse in the process... also, how would people listen when their lights, radios, and televisions no longer function because the power grid is down?
Social upheaval shouldn't be the goal... social reform should be.
Keep in mind that the men who work in those industries also have families that need food, electricity, and security... what are the odds that those men would let their families suffer just to make a political statement?
May 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Jason,
You make some good points. I would like to coment on a couple comments of yours, though.
You said, "Instead the focus should be about getting our issues heard by the general public and casting them in a cohesive and logical framework that is impossible to deny."
I think you are being naive with this statement, particulary the "impossible to deny". Those on the feminists side will literally deny that the grass is green or the sky is blue if it gets them what they want. If you think that simply presenting a factual and logical argument is enough to cause the general public to move to action, I think you are sorely mistaken. As I discussed above, the average woman doesn't want to hear anything of the plight of men. Even fellow men are, for the most part, resistant to giving this matter it's due consideration.
You also said, " Obtaining political access is also of critical importance as that is the most direct way of effective change."
On this one, I 100% agree with you. Most people are pretty much sheep. That's part of the reason why it's so hard to get an audience if you are a MRA. Incidentally, I think that your quote above about presenting logical arguments is only possible after political power has been achieved. As it stands today, politicians could care less if men are suffering. They care about one thing and one thing only, if they piss off the feminists, there will be hell to pay. We have to push back and push back hard; it is only then that it will become mainstream to listen to us.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Jason, I'll stick with my views. And it's going to be far more than me and a few friends. I've read enough stories of policemen and judges saying that the criminal justice system as it is cannot survive because of the growing number of criminals. THEY predict anarchy. Now if the courts can't handle a couple million hardened criminals what makes you think thank can handle millions of angry and disenfranchised men? They can't. The law can only stand when the people are law abiding. But with the way feminists and chivalrists are trashing men you can expect fewer of them to obey the law. This feminist insanity is not going to have a peaceful resolution.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Chris,
"I think you are being naive with this statement, particulary the "impossible to deny". Those on the feminists side will literally deny that the grass is green or the sky is blue if it gets them what they want."
I should have been a bit more clear... when I say "impossible to deny", I specifically mean by those who aren't entrenched by that dogmatic belief system... as in "impossible to deny by the general public".
There are afterall still groups who deny that the earth is billions of years old regardless of how much evidence is presented to them.
I am saying we need to focus on convincing the general populace and pretty much ignore the zealots... we have to be willing to accept the fact that we aren't likely to convince them of anything.
The good news however is that is doesn't matter because they aren't in charge.
"As it stands today, politicians could care less if men are suffering. They care about one thing and one thing only, if they piss off the feminists, there will be hell to pay."
They also care about money... it's not like the feminist lobby is fond of the oil lobby... but the oil lobby still has political access because they make donations.
Ultimately politicians are generally interested in one thing... staying in office... they would sell the feminists down the river if it meant better odds of retaining their position. Which incidentally is why they listen to them... because by listening to them, they improve their odds of staying in government.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I just had a brainstorm and I had to share it. I'm former military so I'm not much for negotiations. I believe in fighting fire with fire and taking no prisoners. Bullies respect nothing less. This goes out to the more civilized MRAs who think you need to win the hearts and minds of the public before we see significant changes for men. I completely disagree. Anyway, here goes my brainstorm or light drizzle depending on how you see it.
I believe that MRAs should set aside one day out of the year and declare it "No To Chivalry Day." The mere existence of such a day would send shivers up and down the spines of women and especially feminists because they know deep down that their agenda only succeeds because of chivalry.
On "No To Chivalry Day" women will be treated like any other man so they can get a taste of true equality which is what they said they wanted all along. I believe this would be a good start in preparation for the revolution that has to come. Otherwise forget it and keep taking what they dish out.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Stephen Says:
"Jason, I'll stick with my views. And it's going to be far more than me and a few friends. I've read enough stories of policemen and judges saying that the criminal justice system as it is cannot survive because of the growing number of criminals. THEY predict anarchy."
I'm not entirely sure what your views are though... is it merely to state that if all men were to simultaneously revolt we would make progress?... I can agree with you there... but at what cost?
I personally think the cost is too great, and so do many others... I would actually say that the majority aren't interested in revolution of any sort.
Notice that you don't mention those policemen or judges declaring that they are ready to quit their jobs and join in this "revolt"... they just see a problem with the current state of affairs in our prisons.
Are you essentially trying to assert that criminals will revolt and somehow decide to become a political movement determined to make society fair for men?
Call me skeptical, but I don't think the first thing on most criminals minds is fairness and equity.
I guess I'll just ask you for some advanced notice for when the revolution is set to begin... that way I'll know to stay inside.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Jason, I generally agree with you. I think you probably give the general populace too much credit here; but, that is not a huge point of contention. I think that the best way to do this is go straight for the government.
This is how I see the government right now. I know this is ridiculous, but it helps me to simplify. I see the feminists as a young woman. This young woman has pair of twin, 6;6" mentally retarded brothers. These brothers follow her around and, whenever she has a tantrum, make sure she gets her way. The woman herself has no real power. It is the brothers doing her bidding that do. Take out the brothers....and she is helpless. MRA's must obtain political parity.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Stephen,
"On "No To Chivalry Day" women will be treated like any other man so they can get a taste of true equality which is what they said they wanted all along."
Why make it just one day?... why not make it all year?... I for one always treat women exactly the same as I would treat men.
The only women who recieve special treatment are those who are special to me... but the men who are special to me also recieve special treatment.
I do see something interesting about making a formal declaration of it though... as I don't even think most people are even aware that I am just treating everyone the same.
So drawing attention to it would be positive in my opinion.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Jason, I'm not at all for criminals and anarchy. When I hear people complain about police brutality or other infractions I'm quick to remind them to be thankful that we have police because the alternative is much worse. I haven't been to jail or committed a major crime in 15 years and I like it that way. But I realize civilized society is a facade. If the power goes out in a major city for a few days it only takes hours for the looters to hit the streets. There simply aren't enough police or national guard to control people if they decide to revolt. I hope we never have anarchy but feminists push too damned hard for there to be anything else. You simply can't continue to strip men of their wealth and turn them into second class citizens and expect anything else. Feminists are so hateful that they wouldn't hesitate to send men into slavery. If men continue to end up in the poorhouse because of alimony and child support there is guaranteed to be anarchy. That's why I encourage men to fight more effectively so that we can avoid anarchy. For instance if men took hold of their own money and boycotted those who would bash us, things would change overnight. So it's back into the trenches for me.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I maybe describing it but I do not believe in it.
b
bernies blogs
May 6th, 2008 at 1:03 am
That whole discussion began to bore me long before I actually gave up reading it. Why do you think the general populace is willing to sit and listen to logic? What possible past experiences could you have had that would make you assume the Average Joe (tm) would respond to a well laid out, cohesive, logical, and ultimately boring as hell argument? How about if the person has no interest in the subject, but no distaste for it either? Gonna bore him to activism are you?
Sheesh.
I agree with the image improvement. I think there desperately needs to be a foundation set up strictly for the purposes of promotion of a positive male image. If I were legally able to, I would set up the damn thing myself, but I can't. I am more than willing to contribute ideas, artwork...hell, I can shoot commercials with a TINY budget (hundreds of dollars), because it's only the models (in a small town) that need to be paid. I just can't fund the damn thing myself. But still, no one does a thing.
Want to know what will get things done? Get men pissed off. Tell them the truth in no uncertain terms, in an ugly and undeniable way (Men have no reproductive rights, etc). Ask men why they put up with it? Tell them it's OK to speak up. Who can argue with that? It's not good PR for feminists, but that's tough now innit?
Men like action movies for a reason. We even like our lawyerin' movies "sped up" without all those annoying unnecessary details. We're action oriented creatures. So appeal to THAT, and get things done. Sure, some men might get REAL pissed off. So what? What are they going to do? Accuse us of exposing their charade?
We need to get "in their face" as it were, but in a neutral (not accommodating) manner....as in "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".
Anything less is doomed to takeover by feminist sympathizers, and ultimate failure.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Factory Says:
"What possible past experiences could you have had that would make you assume the Average Joe (tm) would respond to a well laid out, cohesive, logical, and ultimately boring as hell argument?"
Successfully lobbying for significant improvements in child support/child custody laws in my home state. If you truly want to change the laws, then it's the politicians that you need to connect with, not the Average Joe, not even the average judge. The "get in their face" approach will not work with most politicians and will probably only result in you being escorted out of the building.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Dave Says:
"The "get in their face" approach will not work with most politicians and will probably only result in you being escorted out of the building."
Bingo!
The whole "get in their face", "start a social upheaval", strategy may seem romantic and heroic... but it also isn't likely to work in the manner that many people suspect, and many people that suggest it also aren't willing to actually do anything of the sort, so why do they believe everyone else is going to?
Glenn for example by being reasonable and communicating with people has had far more success than by being a vigilante.
Furthermore, if you want to be a vigilante then go do something... blogging about "getting in peoples faces" while you are sitting at your computer just makes someone look like they are all talk.
At least when I suggest talking about these issues I am being consistant... when someone suggests doing more than talking about it, and then just sits there and does nothing, what does that say?
The point is that you don't brandish a weapon unless you are prepared to use it... I am not prepared to use a weapon, so I don't bother brandishing one... several other posters here are more than willing to flail around a gun, but then put it back in the holster and say "you'd see some real change if I bothered to fire this thing"... I don't see the point in such theatrics.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Factory,
You are pretty much saying the exact thing I am saying... but disagree with me anyway because I chose to phrase it differently than you did?
How are these two things fundamentally different?
"Why do you think the general populace is willing to sit and listen to logic? What possible past experiences could you have had that would make you assume the Average Joe (tm) would respond to a well laid out, cohesive, logical, and ultimately boring as hell argument?"
and
"Want to know what will get things done? Get men pissed off. Tell them the truth in no uncertain terms, in an ugly and undeniable way (Men have no reproductive rights, etc). Ask men why they put up with it? Tell them it's OK to speak up. Who can argue with that?"
Telling people the "truth in no uncertain terms"... telling them these facts in an "undeniable way"... and asking them "why they put up with it" is a well laid out, cohesive, and logical argument.
I think the problem is you are assuming that a logical argument must consist of a list of premises, followed by the conclusion, with a number of arrows pointing from one to the other on a giant flow chart. The argument doesn't have to be academic (nor should it be in most cases), or "boring"... it just has to be factual and make sense.
"We're action oriented creatures. So appeal to THAT, and get things done."
I don't necessarily agree with you here... when it comes to these sorts of issues, men are very likely to hesitate for a huge variety of reasons, not the least of which that they have families that they care about.
As I said before, you don't brandish a weapon unless you are ready to use it... I don't think men as a whole are prepared to go that far... you are free to disagree of course, but every day that society runs like clockwork and men wake up and goto work inspite of everything else that is going on is a vote for them not being ready to "get in peoples faces" in the way that you describe.
I'd also say that in addition to being action oriented, men are also reason oriented... so why not appeal to that and get things done instead when it seems far more likely that men will support a cause that makes sense to them, than to flood the streets with rage over it.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:41 am
Jason: I don't disagree with you, or your stance. In fact, a logical and reasoned approach works quite well in some segments. Strong positions and backbone come in handy in others. No single approach will be successful, and few approaches will be singularly unsuccessful.
My contention is simple...win the hearts of the public, and the lawmakers will be FORCED to change, no argument necessary.
You may disagree, you may agree. But since when does anyone here have a key to a Superweapon called "Men"? What do you mean "brandish"? I'm simply advocating the airing of these positions, and telling men it's OK to speak up. Lead by example, that sort of business.
What's so extreme about that?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Dave, when you "quietly and politely" do anything in politics it makes it THAT much easier to sweep under the rug.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Factory,
I pretty much agree with everything you said in your most recent post. Different ways of describing the situation will resonate better with different groups, and if the goal is to reach most people (which I think it is) then many approaches are necessary.
As for winning the hearts of the public, I think that would be great, but I am also skeptical that we can do it because in general men aren't seen as the underdog... to win the hearts of the public you need to be viewed as the little guy fighting against some massive beast.
The only reason David would win the hearts of the spectators versus Goliath is because he was the guy who seemed like he had no chance... if it was David versus Gloria... I very much doubt that he would have the hearts of the crowd behind him regardless of how tough Gloria was.
The good news is that it isn't absolutely necessary to win over the hearts of the public to get policy to change... if you have a large enough lobby and are well organized, you can still make an impact.
Again, this is one of those "no single approach" will be successful sort of things... so I say both are viable strategies, but for different time scales.
If you are simply talking about airing positions, I think you have the right approach.
My mentioning of "brandishing" anything was more in response to the belief that some others have that what is required is for men to revolt and take to the streets... that is the sort of threat you don't make unless you are ready for the associated action. Men in general aren't prepared to do something like that.
You are right that your position is far less extreme and is one I completely agree with.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Seems to me that the way to win this gender war is to simply not fight,read the example of the great Carthaginian general Hannibal and the way he was stymied and frustrated by the stalling and delaying tactics of the Roman general Fabius Maximus,then apply those same tactics here,you cannot win a battle if the other side doesnt show up,and in the meanwhile we men can just live our lives as WE want to not as some woman thinks we should.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Andy,
Sorry it does not work in our current climate. Do not show up to court and it admits your guilt and you loose [everything].
b
bernies blogs