Skip to comments.Sex, Equality, And Kidding Ourselves (Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)
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.
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.
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.
Just because a man is sterile or a woman is infertile, doesn't make them gay.
Stay Safe !
Uhhh.... then it's the Kliban cartoons and the bartending tips that have you piqued?
Seriously, if you can blame some lame and outdated made up "philosophy" marketed to men in a magazine for five bucks a copy while ignoring the culpability of organized and subsidized feminist hate groups hell bent on marginalizing faithful husbands and feminizing innocent sons, then you're not even inside the ballpark of intelligent discussion.
It was the praticing of that philosophy of predation that was one of the elements that got women so distraut. Several of Hefner's special women committed suicide or wound up psychiatric care. What do you think it did for other women in the country.
Now that modesty is publicly ridiculed and, in fact, young women are assailed day after day by the prominent mouthpieces of our culture to liberate themselves from "rigid gender roles"--that is, to assume the same freewheeling sexual promiscuity heretofore understood as a feature of the young male which required taming by the charms of female modesty--it stands to reason that many men will no longer fulfill the roles they have in the past, now that they are not honored for it (indeed, are demonized as rapists for it), nor are they assured that such a condition will be appreciated or even be lasting (no-fault divorce, the Church's lightening of its standing on divorce).
No, it's you who are confusing timeless immorality (see Sodom and Gomorrah) with the marketing plan of some goofy old man in an ascot and smoking jacket. You lay basic sleaziness at the feet of men as a class while ignoring that it takes two to tango. This makes you a bigot. If you believe that the unprecedented success of a Marxist based radical feminist political movement full of butt ugly lesbians was dreamed up or inspired by a bunch of good ol' boys looking for a good time with your daughter, then you must think Islamic terrorism is just a natural extension of harems and camel races.
I'd be laughing at you if it weren't for the hatred behind your simpleminded worldview.
Therein lies much of the bitterness I see in modern relationships...each is wary of the other (the fruit of thinking of the thing as a battle, though to a point the metaphor makes sense), and neither expects the thing to last, so they avoid giving up a part of themselves which will most likely be lost when the short time the relationship has the easy shine of newness about it is over. But it is not good for man to be alone, and any dolt can see that women have to maul themselves to give up men and the family that a man provides.
The political and societal turmoil are a result of this, I think. The character the family used to provide is no longer a factor in many young men's lives, leading them to a life of crime, licentiousness, and dysfunction; the anchor and shelter a family used to provide is no longer a factor in many young women's lives, and they go out into the world thinking of love (whatever notion they have of it) and sex as instruments to attain their will.
It seems a fixture in young women that can only be rooted out by considerable effort and/or abuse that they will one day be rescued (from loneliness?) by a white knight and live a life of true love and happiness. When they are finally disillusioned of this (which is to say, when they no longer believe this possible--the thing may be an illusion, but if it is so it is a blessed one), what is left but to give themselves away, or to barter themselves away? It is an intense pleasure, but like all of them it fades with constant use...that, coupled with the decided lack of white knights these days contributes in great part to the increase in lesbianism and bisexuality among women, IMO, and to the bitterness I see among some of them. The feminization you mention (which no doubt has some part in the increase among male homosexuality) makes men unfit for women, and the equality being pounded into women makes them unfit for men...we have far too few white knights, and fewer damsels. It is a perlious situation.
Made them rich beyond their wildest dreams?
Blaming men as a class for the hatred and destruction of radical feminism is a bigoted and simpleminded as blaming women when they fall victim to rape. The idea that all suffering is caused by men or that suffering is insignificant unless experienced by a woman is the essence of feminist snake oil - and it's just as often sold by out of touch self righteous conservatives as by idiot academic liberals.
About 40% of my readers are psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, M. D.s and so forth.
Yes, but now, when men get laid, most often there is no child nor family to need him, which vigorously upsets the balance of nature.
It's not NICE to fool with Mother Nature!
Which is why we are about to be usurped by another culture with "stronger" values. The women (Democrats) are all for it.
I believe it was dreamed up by a bunch of evil intellectuals, most of whom were men, and that a bunch of ignorant good ol' boys jumped on the bandwagon because they thought they could have it both ways, have a wild youth and then settle down with a "lady". Well, where are all the ladies going to come from if they are all corrupted by the uncontrolled amourousness of men.
I read my bible and I know which gender was given headship. With that comes greater responsibility (and moral culpability). You are the bigot who faults women for following where MEN HAVE LED!
Good point. Well, dammit, we'll just have to do the right thing and take the reigns of leadership with which we've been charged...
LET THE BEATINGS BEGIN! BURQUAS FOR ALL OF YOU!
I perused your website. If they pay you by the word, you must be a millionaire. If they pay you for each cogent thought, or for each footnote, or for each academic citation, you must be starving to death.
No, but I'm betting you haven't read a word of the material I criticized, which would put you about on the plane you're trying to put me.
As I pointed out, there could well be a million words of diatribe at that site on the state of male/female relationships. It's written in a stilted pedantic tone, and rife with the repeated use of "I think this..." and "In my opinion that..." And nowhere, I mean nowhere, is the a footnot or citation to validate or substantiate a single claim. Then, to top it all off, it all resides under the main website of one J. Orlin Grabbe, notorious internet pseudo-intellectual, snake oil salesman, and conspiracy theorist.
How's that for snappy comeback and repartee?
My maturity or lack thereof is a whole other issue. But note that I criticize your written word, while you attack me personally. Pot, kettle, black.
This is not correct. The sperm count has nothing to do with masculine attitudes and behaviours.
I think you are thinking about testoterone. Or if you want the opposite hormone, from women, estrogen.
I agree with you. But one thing that nags at me is the story of the woman pilot in the Gulf War who was taken prisoner. The rumor was that she was repeatedly raped and tortured. I don't believe that we've heard the real story on this. It seems like the lefties have dropped the ball on this or maybe it never happened. I'm puzzled.
You have an interesting take on this. I'm going to have to ask my wife what she thinks before I can respond.
It's essentially a college and post-graduate course in politics, psychology, and sociology all rolled into one, with a lot of history thrown in for good measure. It presumes that the reader can abstract from facts and connect the abstractions to form new concepts. It presumes a level of education or insight capable of recognizing historically observable and theoretically demonstrable phenomena, and the ability to extrapolate probable outcomes.
As for your snappy comeback, all I can say is that you write like a precocious thirteen year old with a new thesaurus. Being thrilled by a Vonnegut story and letting everyone know that you are an enthusiastic Vonnegut fan is not the same as being able to write with Vonnegut's vivid economy.
Seems like it does't it? But it's not true. The percentage of gays in the general population remains relatively constant.
LET THE BEATINGS BEGIN! BURQUAS FOR ALL OF YOU!
You must be tired of hearing the word immature. Grow up and you'll hear it a lot less.
No, it's not. It's a vanity series published on the internet. No references, no qualitative data, no citations, not one single footnote or credit to an outside source. Just one man's rambling opinions written in a million words or more. And by bringing it here in bits and pieces with quaint theories like the scourge of the "Playboy Philosophy" made it fair game for criticism.
From the series:
Myers, JK, Weissman MM, Tischler GL, Holzer CE III, Leaf PJ, Orvaschel H, Anthony JC, Boyd JH, Burke JD Jr, Kramer M, Stoltzman R: Six-month prevalence of psychiatric disorders in three communities 1980-1982. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984;41:959-967.
Robins LN, Helzer JE, Weissman MM. Orvaschel H, Gruenberg E, Burke JD Jr, Regier DA: Lifetime prevalence of specific psychiatric disorders in three sites. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984;41:949-958.
One of many in the series. Many are included in the text in conversational style, but can be traced to the sources.
Basically, you have a problem. You are a gamma level, or at best beta minus mind trying to present yourself as an alpha through pretentious vocabulary and trivial criticism of form.
Secondly, you're a God damned liar.
About ten people on this thread have told you that in one way or another. Maybe you should listen for the first time in your life.
You are caught and revealed for what you are, and are vainly attempting to argue your way out of it. You aren't going to make it in this life among people of stature or substance, sonny boy. As one of the other posters here said, if you are tired of hearing it, gtow up. In your case, however, the the advice is somewhat useless because you have an intrinsic mental limitation that is incurable. I suspect it is useless to suggest you stop inflicting that limitation on other people.
Have a nice day.
Who are you, again, blowhard yokel? I don't believe I caught your name or background.
The referenced work on man/woman relationships comes off not simply as if the writer has never been married, but as if he never even had a date. What tripe.
Before, you told me there were no references.
Typical gamma minus mentality and emotionality.