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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
----------------------------
That wasn't the point and you damned well know it.
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.
------------------------
That's a good one and true.
I have a maxim. My body may like her body, but if my mind doesn't like her mind and my soul doesn't liker her soul interacting with her body becomes prohibited by the emptyness.
While the little wife is barefoot and pregnant, heh?
Sorry, buddy, but only godly men can hold onto godly women. The playboy philosphy and sexual revolution is largely responsible for where we are today.
We have spawned generations of both sexs who lack capacity for any kind of reasonable interpersonal relationships. They are trying to make sex do everything. As far as sex, you dial their navel for the disease you want.
In other words, just plain screwed up. All of the adjectives do apply. But you did leave out rude and pathetic.
How true, especially the shallow part......their primary concerns in life seem to revolve around celebrities, diets, shopping, and "choice".
I don't know about you guys, but I wear the pants in my house!Whatever pair she tells me to.
The Women I speak of were not "glamour" gals, they were the Female Intellectuals of the time. Psychologist, anthropologist, behavioral Scientist and the such. Many people (mostly men) came against these women and their crack-pot ideas and "research" and in turn were scathed by the majority of Women and Intellectual men. They were labeled sexist and troglodytes. Look back and you will find that most men (before the sixties, the ones not trained by these freaks) were adamantly against such Sudo-science (sic) and even published work contradicting them. All to no avail. The men you seem to lay a portion blame (deservedly so) on were instructed and shaped by these crack pots. They were not the cause but the continuing effect. This social, sexual revolution truly began in the twenties and thirties by Women, Homosexuals and so called Intellectuals. The movement was furthered by the absents of True Men. Men called to duty in a war torn era and fuel by the desire for equal rights. Then, as now worthy social causes were hijacked by "progressive" intellectuals (see Environmentalism, Minority Rights, Social Welfare (during the depression) and Animal rights for example).
And there are many more. So lets lay the blame at the feet of Socialist, Morally deviant scientist and Intellectuals and then at our self's for letting it happen.
I sent a letter to the paper, which they actually printed:
"Ms. So-and-so is frustrated because she is unable to convert little boys into little girls. Meanwhile, Patsy Schroeder is trying to turn women into men."
==============================
The feminization of the military had a goal, which was to weaken the U.S. military and America in general. The thinking was:
- Women would get pregnant...reduces readiness.
- There would be conflicts over who dates who...reduces unit cohesiveness.
- In a battle, a wounded woman will 'naturally' cause all of the men to focus on her--and neglect the pressing task of keeping their unit alive.
- Eventually you will see technicolor film of a 21-year-old farm girl bleeding her guts out on the sand. The leftists calculate that this will destroy morale--and more importantly, it will destroy public support for the projection of U.S. military strength.
- If they get film of a female P.O.W. being tortured and raped, they will be ecstatic.
No matter what--they win and America loses.
--Boris
-------------------------------
You probably could. Many people have. The criticism has been directed exclusively at men for several decades. Continue doing it that way if you think it will result in an improvement. The fact is, for the last 40 years women have come to me spouting Margarete Meade, Gloria Steinem, Doctor Ruth, Helen Gurly Brown and her Cosmopolitan Magazine which has been a field manual for mindless sluts, Susan Foreward, and so forth. I haven't been able to get a word edgewise about anything for 40 years and yet women say the problem is me. Right now Britney Spears has more influence over the values in this country that all the religions and whatever. That's what men will face.
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.