Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sex, Equality, And Kidding Ourselves (Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)
FredonEverything.com ^ | 4/17/02 | Fred Reed

Posted on 04/17/2002 1:58:35 PM PDT by M 91 u2 K

Men of today's older generation grew up in the chivalric miasma of their time, which held that women were morally superior to men, and that civilized men protected women against any available vicissitude. A corollary was that women needed protecting. So common has this understanding been throughout history that one may suspect it of being based in ancient instinct: In a less hospitable world, if men didn't protect women, something disagreeable would eat them, and then there would be no more people. So men did. And do.

Instincts have consequences, particularly when the circumstances requiring them cease to exist.

Because women were until recently subordinate, and in large part played the role of gentility assigned to them, men didn't recognize that they could be dangerous, selfish, or sometimes outright vipers. They were no worse than men, but neither were they better. Men believed, as did women, that women were tender creatures, caring, kind, and suited to be mothers. Males deferred to women in many things, which didn't matter because the things women wanted were not important.

When women came into a degree of power, it turned out that they were as immoral, or amoral, as men, probably more self-centered, and out for what they could get. Not all were, of course, as neither were all men, but suddenly this became the central current. This too followed lines of instinctual plausibility: Women took care of children and themselves, and men took care of women. It made sense that they should be self-centered.

These newly empowered women knew, as women have always known, how to wield charm, and they quickly learned to enjoy power. The men of the old school didn't notice in time. They deferred, and they were blind-sided. They gave gentlemanly agreement to one-sided laws hostile to men.

Political deference became a pattern. It remains a pattern. It probably springs in part from the male's instinctive recognition that, by giving women what they want, he gets laid. Between individuals this worked tolerably well, but less so when applied to abstract groups.

When women said they wanted protection against dead-beat dads, the old school fell for it. They were attuned to saving maidens and the sheltering from life's storms of white Christian motherhood. "Dead-beat dads" was of course that sure-fire political winner -- an alliterative slogan of few words that embodied a conclusion but no analysis. So sure were men that women were the kinder gentler sex that they never bothered to look at the statistics on abuse of children, or the track records of the sexes in raising children.

The romantic elderly male believed -- believes -- that women were the natural proprietors of the young. This led to laws virtually denying a divorced father's interest in his children, though not the requirement that he pay for their upkeep. The pattern holds today. Male judges in family law defer to women, almost any women no matter how unfit, and female judges side with their own. The demonstrable fact that women can and do abuse and neglect children, that a female executive clawing her way up the hierarchy may have the maternal instincts of a rattlesnake, that children need their fathers -- all of this has been forgotten.

The reflexive deference continued. Feminists wanted congress to pass a vast program of funding for every left-wing cause that incited enthusiasm in the sterile nests of NOW. They called it the Violence Against Women Act, and men deferentially gave it to them. Of course to vote against it, no matter what it actually said -- and almost no one knew -- would have been to seem to favor violence against women. A law to exterminate orphans, if called the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, would pass without demur.

There followed yet more male deference to female desires. When women wanted to go into the military to have babies, or a Soldier Experience, men couldn't bring themselves to say no.

When the women couldn't perform as soldiers, men graciously lowered standards so they could appear to. It was the equivalent of helping a woman over a log in the park, the legal and institutional parallel of murmuring, "Don't worry your pretty little head about a thing."

On and on it went. The aggregate effect has been that women have gained real power, while (or by) managing in large part to continue to exact deference and, crucially, to avoid the accountability that should come with power. A minor example is women who want the preferential treatment that women now enjoy, and yet expect men to pay for their dates. In today's circumstances, this is simple parasitism.

Today men are accountable for their behavior. Women are not. The lack of accountability, seldom clearly recognized, is the bedrock of much of today's feminist misbehavior, influence, and politics. Its pervasiveness is worth pondering.

A man who sires children and leaves is called a dead-beat dad, and persecuted. A woman who has seven children out of wedlock and no capacity to raise them is not a criminal, but a victim. He is accountable for his misbehavior, but she is not for hers. It is often thus.

Consider the female Army officer who complained that morning runs were demeaning to women. A man who thus sniveled would be disciplined, ridiculed, and perhaps thumped. Yet the Army fell over itself to apologize and investigate. Again, men are held accountable for their indiscipline, but women are not. Men expect to adapt themselves to the Army, but women expect the Army to adapt to them. And it does. The male instinct is to keep women happy.

Note that a woman who brings charges of sexual harassment against a man suffers no, or minor, consequences if the charges are found to be unfounded -- i.e., made up. A man who lied about a woman's misbehavior would be sacked. He is accountable. She isn't.

Yes, large numbers of women are responsible, competent, and agreeable. Few engage in the worst abuses, as for example the fabrication of sexual harassment. Yet they can do these things. A man cannot throw a fit and get his way. A woman can. Only a few need misbehave to poison the air and set society on edge. And the many profit by the misbehavior of the few.

People will do what they can get away with. Men assuredly will, and so are restrained by law. Women are not. Here is the root of much evil, for society, children, men and, yes, women.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-357 next last
My solution is that instead of feminizing our young men and making our young women more masculine, we do something else. What that something else is I have no clue??
1 posted on 04/17/2002 1:58:36 PM PDT by M 91 u2 K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
How about responsibility for your actions, regardless of gender?
2 posted on 04/17/2002 2:02:52 PM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
How about responsibility for your actions, regardless of gender?

I'll vote for that one and also for letting boys grow up to be the healthy males they were meant to be.

3 posted on 04/17/2002 2:28:55 PM PDT by Bigg Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
How about masculinizing our boys and feminizing our women?

BTW, the author is a racist pig who hates women. They were attuned to saving maidens and the sheltering from life's storms of white Christian motherhood.

Not for one minute do I believe that women jumped ship first. It was men who shirked responsible leadership and women responded with feminazism.

The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking.

4 posted on 04/17/2002 2:29:28 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
We men should see to it that our families are run, and our children are raised, according to the Bible. (This, of course, presupposes that the Bible is true - which is what I believe.) The Bible makes some pretty clear distinctions between men and women in Ephesians 5:22-6:4, 1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Timothy 5:1-16, Titus 2:1-6, and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Like I said, this is based on believing the Bible. If you don't believe it, then I suppose you'll have to come up with something else. :-)

5 posted on 04/17/2002 2:29:38 PM PDT by robert0122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Works for me...

the infowarrior

6 posted on 04/17/2002 2:31:16 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Works for me...

the infowarrior

7 posted on 04/17/2002 2:31:43 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking.

Looks like an interesting basis for a vanity.

8 posted on 04/17/2002 2:36:03 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K

(Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)

Well, I suppose that's one way to spend your last brief moments on earth....

Dan

9 posted on 04/17/2002 2:40:09 PM PDT by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
bttt
10 posted on 04/17/2002 2:49:23 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
How about recognizing that any sweeping generalizations about groups as large as "women" and "men" are patently absurd? How about recognizing that women and men are individuals, not stereotypes? Switch the genders in this article, and it sounds as bad as something that idiot Patricia Ireland would write.
11 posted on 04/17/2002 2:53:08 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war,

---------------------

After 35 years of study I agree with you to some extent. Playboy philosophy started the war. But the women also decided they liked the action in bed and eagerly took the bait. However, they didn't like the consequences of having taken up the life style.

12 posted on 04/17/2002 2:59:48 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
"How about masculinizing our boys and feminizing our women?"

I enjoy Fred's humor immensely. But it only took your question to wipe the smile off my face. By turning our boys over to the sole care of selfish women via divorce, single motherhood, and the feminized public school systems, we have committed cultural suicide. By the time men as a social force realize that "enough is enough," there will be too few of us left to do anything but slink into mountain caves to wait for civilization to destroy itself.

13 posted on 04/17/2002 3:00:23 PM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
(Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)

-------------------

The majority of them have. They have foregone serious long term relationships with women.

14 posted on 04/17/2002 3:02:22 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
How about responsibility for your actions, regardless of gender?

I'm happy you said that. Made my load a little lighter, and gave me a feeling of superiority.

15 posted on 04/17/2002 3:05:09 PM PDT by Razz Barry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: 1/1,000,000th%
It's true, the various deadbeat dad laws, the custody laws, the restraining order laws are routinely used to beat up good patriarchal type men trying to be fathers to their kids.

The playboys and the violent wolves just as routinely ignore all the above and do what they what, and generally waltz away.

As long as men admire other men for their ability to get, use and dispose of women shamelessly, and uphold that behavior as socially acceptable the war will continue.

Men do need to put their collective foot down, but it's with other men. You dudes put your patriarchal house in order and you'll have no trouble getting the gals back in line.

17 posted on 04/17/2002 3:08:30 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
BTW, the author is a racist pig who hates women.

I tend to agree. Here's a better take, IMHO, from a reply within Mothers in Combat Boots.

But one must beware of some guy who is intimidated by women unless she's in a subservient or traditional position or some who want to keep women down and out.

Spoken like one who has a true contempt for women and their role as life-bearers and mothers and believes it is somehow "empowering" for women to split themselves in two so as to handle (by half the usual measure) the responsibilities of fulltime career and fulltime mother.

Perhaps it is you who are intimidated by women who aren't "leveled" down to a male-based homogenous form of New Man with the right to be unpregnant at will and a sexual predator (when she's being degraded on prime-time HBO for entertainment purposes or gang-raped, razor-bladed or copulating with animals for some pornographer's Pink Ballet).

Further to the author's quotes about the Socratic observation of human nature which the feminists seek to destroy with their unisex toilets, boys that must drugged until they behave like girls and women who must have every accomodation in order to act like men ...
... Clearly, life-affirmation is one source of gentleness and protectiveness toward women. But woman has another claim to male reverence and self-control -- her beauty. Why? Beauty is an immediately perceptible experience of perfection, of the ideal, of the sacred, therefore of God. Beauty is God's manifestation of His Goodness and perfection in the material world – whether in a sunset or a woman's person.

As Simone Weil aptly put is, "Beauty is eternity here below." this is confirmed by one's typical response to natural beauty, including beautiful women: wonder, awe, even reverent fear akin to "fear of the Lord." Often, too, one experiences a painfully intense tenderness and protectiveness for the beautiful.

Dwelling in an imperfect, often painful world, we need reminders that God exists and that perfection is possible. Beauty is that reminder. It keeps our longing for and awareness of the divine from being worn away by the frustrations and travails of daily life. Beauty affirms that life is good and worth living [AND WORTH FIGHTING FOR]. Beauty, then, is food for the soul – just as vital as food for the body.

When the beautiful is destroyed, damaged or degraded, we are the less for it; our souls have been robbed of an object of one of their deepest needs and yearnings.

Reverence for beauty and reverence for women and indissolubly linked, the first naturally evoking the second, the second a manifestation of the first. Women are indisputably the custodians of much of the world's beauty, certainly of humanity's – and not physical beauty only but a beauty of the soul … in their capacity for love, manifested in gentleness, sweetness, devotion and empathy. Women thus manifest the perfection our souls seek, hence are precious.

It follows that reverence, gallantry and protectiveness are the appropriate response to female beauty and are the women's due.

… Woman's fecundity and beauty, then, have profound significance. In them God's creativity, perfection and goodness are manifest. In them too woman is, properly understood, a bridge to the transcendent; they prompt us to cherish her, and in cherishing her we grow in virtue; as Goethe pointed out in concluding Faust, woman ever draws us higher toward perfection.

Who honors woman, the vessel of life and beauty, honors them and the God who is their author. A life-affirming, beauty-honoring civilization – which is to say a religious one – will honor women and regard chivalry as ideal.

All too clearly, we no longer inhabit such a civilization … If life is not a miraculous divine gift, but something that just happened for no explicable reason or purpose, then it has no intrinsic value. As the bearers and nurturers of life, women are the natural targets of nihilism.

… Misogyny, then, is not merely hatred for women but hatred for that which defines them as women and entitles them to Reverence and Self-Restraint; their beauty and life-bearing
… The perfect example of this is the Marquis de Sade …

Long deemed virtuous and passive, women, in the sadist's world, are the appropriate victims. And woman's physical softness, apparent vulnerability, and beauty which in a civilized world inspire protectiveness, reverence and tenderness, in a sadist's inverted world only prompt cruelty.

… Woman thus now lives in a civilization seethingly hostile to life and beauty, her central defining characteristics as woman. She lives too, as the foregoing evidence also shows, in a civilization which is rejecting restraint, including self-control, all across the board, and becoming increasingly savage.

She lives, in short, in a Sadean death culture. And repudiation of beauty, life and restraint leads inexorably to rejection of and cruelty to she who personifies the first two and thereby has a claim on the third.

Like Sade, Romanticism glorified self-will. Solipsism and self-will are epitomized in sexually victimizing woman. Cruelty, rape and other defilement are praiseworthy; they manifest the triumph of the will, the victory of the active and assertive over the passive. Atheist Ayn Rand, an enormously influential pioneer of modern libertarianism, a self-proclaimed Romantic whose motive was "the projection of an ideal man," worshipped assertive male self-will. In Randian eyes, rape is romantic and heroic; the greater her beauty or achievements, the greater his triumph. [Several paragraphs on the rape of Dominique, etc. omitted.]

… Profound woman-hatred also informed modernity's ugly, decidedly unwomanly ideal of female beauty: thin, stringy arms and legs; a hard flat abdomen; vestigial breasts. New York writer Dalma Heyn lauded "the miracle of female bodies; the reproductive significance of those curves and bulges, the sumptuous glory of it all" - and added perceptively that women accepting the starveling

boyish ideal suffer from "revulsion at looking female" and "self-loathing," and "battle our own intrinsic femaleness." If a woman's normal voluptuousness has "reproductive significance" and sumptuous glory," draw your own conclusions about how an ideal of resembling "a well-developed adolescent boy" values life and beauty.

Radical feminism is a misogynistic Sadean rebellion against metaphysically-given existence, repudiating womanhood, aiming to "liberate" women from it.

… In 1948, Richard Weaver wondered "whether modern civilization wishes to survive" (Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19481, P. 185). Half a century later, we have our answer.

Modernism's crowning suicidal lunacy
in an era full of them
is feminism's campaign to force women into combat.

Now women too can die horrible deaths chillingly like Sade's "murderous passions": tortured to death as POWs, dismembered by artillery, crushed by tanks, roasted alive with napalm. Instead of admitting that the whole modern project which began with the Enlightenment has been a lethal error and a ghastly flop, feminists and other moderns keep stripping woman of her few remaining protections, prating all the while of how they are setting her free.

Excerpted from John Attarian's Women and the Sadean Death Culture (Culture Wars 12/97, pp.14-21)
Also on point (where the deconstruction of male common sense and divesting him of the self-discipline and assumption of responsibility from which flow his rightful authority and keep him impervious to the attempts of the State to manipulate him) ... Eyeless in Gaza: Sexual Liberation as Political Control
18 posted on 04/17/2002 3:15:36 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Harrison Bergeron
. By turning our boys over to the sole care of selfish women via divorce

It is not only selfish women who divorce. The trend of maternal custody is a recent one in history. It came about because the playboy philosphy values sexual freedom over paternal responsibility and gladly gave up custody to obtain it. It was a hollow victory.

20 posted on 04/17/2002 3:18:08 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
"The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking."

Thanks for clearing that up. I fell for the old story about abortion-on-demand, liberal social welfare policies, and "divorce on demand" being responsible for the destruction of the family and marginalization of the father. Now I know the problen was really caused by guys looking at racy pictures, reading dirty jokes, and learning how to tell the difference between a Lamborghini and a Ferrari.

21 posted on 04/17/2002 3:18:08 PM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RLK
"They have foregone serious long term relationships with women."

I see many single men in their 20s-30s-40s.

22 posted on 04/17/2002 3:19:42 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RLK
The majority of them have. They have foregone serious long term relationships with women.

The problem is that they haven't given up casual sex, so women can still have children without husbands. Men have in effect taken themselves out of the family unit and the ability to influence future generations, but most are too busy reading the latest issue of Playboy to see what they have done to themselves.

23 posted on 04/17/2002 3:19:57 PM PDT by Balto_Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
"You dudes put your patriarchal house in order and you'll have no trouble getting the gals back in line."

Are these women worth having?

24 posted on 04/17/2002 3:20:27 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Well, I suppose that's one way to spend your last brief moments on earth....

When I put my foot down, it did not end my life, but it sure ended my marriage. So much for that line of reasoning.

25 posted on 04/17/2002 3:20:45 PM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Harrison Bergeron
You are confusing the magazine with the philosphy of using women as utilitarian object for self pleasure, viewing children as burdens rather than gifts.

If you ever voluteer in an abortion alternative center, you would realize that abortions are not demanded by girls, but by playboys who want to play and not be men.

26 posted on 04/17/2002 3:27:41 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Playboy and the pill came along about the same time to enable us to find ourselves, if it feels good do it etc. And the bottom line - the reason we even have gender and physical attraction and sexual relations etc.- the raising of healthy children of character and worth - was just swept aside.
27 posted on 04/17/2002 3:28:09 PM PDT by Let's Roll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
YES!!!!
28 posted on 04/17/2002 3:28:31 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
It's all over folks. Women are making men gay. The answer is in your water supply. A recent study in England showed that the

Fears over the "gender bender" effect of pollution, arose after Environment Agency research showed that half of all the male fish in low-lying English rivers are changing sex as a result of water pollution.

The source of contamination is believed to be urine from tens of thousands of women who use the contraceptive pill.

Sperm counts are going down steeply in England. Is contraception our own suicide bomb? By the time women decide to have another baby boom, the men will be gay. What goes around comes around.

29 posted on 04/17/2002 3:29:55 PM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
Hey, some of us unabashadly, unashamedly feminine female vessels of life are VERY worth having!

But might I suggest you keep your pants zipped until you have in fact married such a female.

30 posted on 04/17/2002 3:32:45 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
Playboy and the pill came along about the same time

NOT even the same decade.

31 posted on 04/17/2002 3:34:59 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
1. Fish aren't people.

2. Low sperm count means a man is sterile, not gay.

32 posted on 04/17/2002 3:36:24 PM PDT by Hawkeye's Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
"But might I suggest you keep your pants zipped until you have in fact married such a female."

I already am married. I was talking about the younger generation.

33 posted on 04/17/2002 3:41:27 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Which Gender is more likley to cheat?
34 posted on 04/17/2002 3:42:30 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Which gender is most likely to cheat? Well I think the current statistics are still showing men to be the winners in the category, although women are fast closing and may soon equal men.

The individual least likely to cheat is the one most committed to their children or to the ideal of monogamy.

Which is why one should first be committed to the ideal (which always remains lovely) before committing to a person (who will have unlovely moments).

35 posted on 04/17/2002 3:55:29 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hawkeye's Girl
It seems reasonable to assume that if sperm count plummets, a man's masculine attitudes and behaviors will also plummet. The fact is that sperm counts are dropping. How would you explain it? What results would you expect?
36 posted on 04/17/2002 4:10:52 PM PDT by born yesterday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
"They have foregone serious long term relationships with women." I see many single men in their 20s-30s-40s.

----------------

There are now more never-married people in that age group than since the sex's were separated by the American fronier.

37 posted on 04/17/2002 4:16:14 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: born yesterday
Dude, a man's masculine attitudes and behaviors are connected to his testosterone levels, not his sperm count.

Sterile men aren't any less guys than normal men.

38 posted on 04/17/2002 4:17:11 PM PDT by Hawkeye's Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Hey, some of us unabashadly, unashamedly feminine female vessels of life are VERY worth having! But might I suggest you keep your pants zipped until you have in fact married such a female.

-----------------------

To a slight extent true, but let's be a little more truthful. One man keeping his pants zipped has little effect when the only thing it means is that the modern liberated woman is going to screw somebody else.

39 posted on 04/17/2002 4:26:22 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
In 1960, the first oral contraceptive (Enovid-10) was launched in the US market. First issue of Playboy - December 1953 (the Marilyn Monroe issue) so call it 1954. So, yes, different "decade" but certainly closer than you're implying. I thought they were about five years apart.
40 posted on 04/17/2002 4:26:42 PM PDT by Let's Roll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
That six year period was like different centuries.
41 posted on 04/17/2002 4:32:31 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Last time I checked more Women cheat as well as "bat" for both teams.

My point is that while men have a part in this crap-bucket, it is not all the men's fault. Women and Gays are the ones who demand sexual freedoms, not Heterosexual men. If you look to the past you will find the many "flamboyant" Women of the Thirties, Forties and Fifties that ushered in the Sexual revolution of the Sixties. Women who took the Women's Lib movement to the extreme in it's earliest stages and negated or removed the role of men. Women who "needed" no man and preferred Females. Some of the most astounding (and crack pot) sexual research and theories of these times were "found" and/or promoted by Women (including Women\Girl, Boy\Man). Remember, most of this happened in the Universities of the day first and much while the "real" men were at war (WWII, Korea and Vietnam).

42 posted on 04/17/2002 4:55:08 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RLK
One man keeping his pants zipped has little effect when the only thing it means is that the modern liberated woman is going to screw somebody else.

What's your point here, that she's going to screw somebody so it might as well be you?

Keeping your pants zipped will have a great effect in NOT repulsing the kind of woman you want while actively discouraging the liberated women you don't want.

Not to mention preventing yourself from being used as a sperm donor by a modern liberated Jane who wants to satisfy her biological clock.

43 posted on 04/17/2002 4:55:22 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
No it's not all their fault, but it is their responsibility to lead, not whine about it. As the posted article does.

And still, I believe that the playboy philosphy was developed by men and marketed to women. Those glamour stars of the 20's-40's were marketed to women, by men and male dominated corporations. They just didn't look far enough ahead to what "liberating" women for their sexual utilitarianism would do.

Now the culture rot and gender war is.......spiraling out of control.

44 posted on 04/17/2002 5:04:28 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
The philosophy preceded the magazine by some more years still. And abortion followed the pill by another decade as preventing pregnancy was no longer enough, follwed by the homosexual liberation of the eighties and partial birth abortion of the nineties (not enough to kill the as pre-borns, gotta kill while being born) and now the normalization of sex with children in the 21st century.

The slippery slope of moral rot is clear. But where did it start and with whom? And which gender is at the forefront of demanding more sexual libertinism.

45 posted on 04/17/2002 5:12:43 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hawkeye's Girl
"2. Low sperm count means a man is sterile, not gay. "

Well there are a lot more gays today and a lot fewer children so have it your way. Talking won't be able to fool nature.

46 posted on 04/17/2002 5:20:24 PM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RLK
A lot of women are like leopards: I like to look at them, but I don't want one in the house.
47 posted on 04/17/2002 6:46:16 PM PDT by Mortimer Snavely
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
One man keeping his pants zipped has little effect when the only thing it means is that the modern liberated woman is going to screw somebody else. What's your point here, that she's going to screw somebody so it might as well be you?

----------------------------

That wasn't the point and you damned well know it.

48 posted on 04/17/2002 6:53:20 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Males and females are very separated now. The sexual revolution has done it's job well.
49 posted on 04/17/2002 6:54:33 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
"When women came into a degree of power, it turned out that they were as immoral, or amoral, as men, probably more self-centered, and out for what they could get"

yeah, yeah, yeah. Men could live by a double standard for thousands of years, but women could not. Now, that a bunch of feminazis want a chance to catch up, women are "probably more selfish"? The author's bias is a bit too apparent.

50 posted on 04/17/2002 6:57:15 PM PDT by joathome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-357 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson