Back in late 2009-early 2010, I spent a few days reading A View From The Right in a belated effort to read more of the 'game' debate that occurred during the summer of 2009. When reading fans of Roissy (such as In Mala Fide), I'd see allusions to Lawrence Auster's website, A View From The Right. Being the curious guy that I am, I checked out what Mr. Auster had to say. Though I read what others had to say about Mr. Auster, I wanted to see for myself what the man had to say; I wanted to read the other side of the argument; I wanted to see if there was any good points against game, or if there were ways I could better articulate my views. I haven't been disappointed! I agree with a lot of what Mr. Auster has to say; philosophically, ethically, and in other ways, he and I are on the same page.
During one of his debates with the pro-game crowd, he received this reply to an e-mail he sent to one of them. The exchange is below. Mark P., a reader of Roissy's, succinctly diagnoses the problems between men and women relating to one another. Mark P. articulates what I would have said if I could have found the words to articulate my diagnosis of the chasm between men & women. This is good stuff! Read & learn, Grasshopper...
----------------
Since reader Mark P. has often expressed a kind of law-of-the-jungle view of sex relations which I have found both interesting and disturbing, I wrote to him the other day:
I'm surprised you haven't had more to say about this whole Alpha male / Beta male discussion going on at Mangan's which I've been linking.Mark has replied with this very instructive comment:
I've actually been reading Roissy's site for the past year or so. It's been on my rotation of websites.
I'm not so certain that reducing women to sex objects and playing on their emotional vulnerabilities is really a good description of "Game." It is probably more accurate to call Game the re-initialization of Men as they used to be...a method of "de-programming" men from what they've become. I would suggest reading this. It's an interesting application of game by a practitioner within his own marriage. How true it is, I don't know, but it is a worthwhile read.
As far as the alpha/beta distinction and the various other theories are concerned, I believe I can explain it better without resorting to biological reductionism. Basically, what's been introduced into the relationship environment is an imbalance in how men and women interact. Within marriage, like tends to marry like. If people can be ranked hierarchically on a scale of 1-10, then we would see 3's marry 3's; 7's marry 7's; and 10's marry 10's. This is what we have scene throughout Western history when relationships between men and women were confined within a marriage. Men and women sorted each other according to comparable attributes of physical appearance, charisma, status, etc. Previous generations would've called this finding a suitable mate. When marriages occur today, this suitability principle still holds and it is rarely broken.
Cracks in male/female relationships began when men and women started interacting outside of marriage. As many of the commentators have noted, anonymous urban living, contraceptives, the breakdown of social shaming, etc., has allowed women to pursue men in bars and clubs without the worry of rumors and unwanted pregnancies spoiling reputations. This brought in the first problem threatening men: the system of like marries like breaks down. Just like men, women cannot marry above their station. Unlike men, however, women can easily date and sleep with men above their station. This means that a woman who is a 5 or 6 can sleep with a man who is a 7, 8 or a 9. Consequently, the vast bulk of men face the problem that their female equivalents do not want them, simply because the women can do better. In a sense, the women are right...up to the point of marriage. That is why women are racking up such huge body counts.
The second problem that men face is that women can out-compete men in the workplace. Affirmative action and gender quotas means women will soon make more money than men. The vast bulk of men will not only not be wanted by their equivalents, they cannot even sell themselves as effective providers.
The third problem is the divorce industry.
The fourth problem is the cultural "emasculation" of (white) men. Men are being taught the wrong things and society is reinforcing that teaching.
All of the above problems have consequences. The vast majority of women have entered a tournament where they are leveraging their prime years trying to snag a man that is either too attractive or too successful, or both, for them. When they fail and inevitably reach north of 30 without a husband, they then scramble around and marry a man they would've ignored before. Unfortunately, a woman with a history of dozens of sex partners all more attractive than her current husband is not fit for any long-term relationship. Divorce is inevitable. This is probably why women are surveying as very dissatisfied.
Larger social consequences loom, of which demographics is the least worrisome. Wives and children are the glue that holds society together. It makes men invested in the society around them. What happens when you have armies of unattached men with no investment in society? You have men who will not care what happens to that society or the women in it. This sheds some light on the recent mass killings where men did nothing to protect the women being shot. Unlike the men on Titanic, today's men see no reason to sacrifice their lives for a feminist, PC-addled girl who thinks men are rapists.
LA replies:
Your Roissy-like analysis of the problems, particularly the first problem, is cogent and fascinating. I don't know whether it's true, but it's fascinating.
However, once we get beyond the analysis, how does the Roissyite "Game" come in? You haven't discussed that. Based on your diagnosis of the problems, particularly of the breaking of the bonds of sympathy between men and women that you describe in your last paragraph, one must assume that the purpose of "Game" is not to end this alienation between the sexes, but to help men acquire sex partners who are above their "station," just as women are already acquiring sex partners above theirs. It's hard to see what else the vaunted de-programming you mention consists of.
And if that's all it is, then, since you mentioned Titanic, it would appear that the Roissyite Game is about nothing more than getting the most and the best sex partners one can get while Titanic is sinking.
----------------
That's as good a diagnosis as I've read WRT the rift between men and women. Mark succinctly lays out the problem, its history, and why 'game' has arisen as a response. I hope you all learned something; I know I did...
MarkyMark
85 comments:
That is a fair description of Game. I have used Game to better myself and find an exceptional woman that is similar to my rank.
But the power of my skills enhances the bonding in an exclusive relationship. Game skills help an man find and keep the right woman, but constantly Gaming her is not necessary.
Mark P laid it bare. We see more evidence of his points with Japan's grass eating men and the Concordia sinking. And yet, women *still* don't see what's happening.
"Game skills help an man find and keep the right woman, but constantly Gaming her is not necessary."
The problem is that there are very few genuine "right women" and many women who know how to mimic the "right women".
That's it in a nutshell. And unfortunately most women just don't get it. Oh well, I've already got one foot in the lifeboat as I don't need a woman for anything. I've learned to do without, and am happier for it.
I stole this comment:
She's hypergamy
He's hyper-gamey!
7man,in seven years or less you're gonna see you're wrong on what you posted here.
Once in an LTR the male is demoted to beta.
End of story,she's already out looking for the BBD.
(bigger better deal)
"...today's men see no reason to sacrifice their lives for a feminist, PC-addled girl who thinks men are rapists."
Damn right and spot on! Why should I or ANY man want to have ANYTHING to do with a member of a gender who:
-- proudly shrieks their hatred of me and my gender and who has stated that their greatest goal is the extermination of my gender?
-- demands the increasing criminalization of any 'unwanted' interaction shown by any member of my gender?
-- endlessly uses the old 'NAWALT' argument, when they have never been heard to disagree with Team Vagina?
-- constantly resorts to shaming language when they cannot come up with a truthful answer to questions such as "Why should I or any man be involved with any of you? / What do you bring to a relationship besides yourself, your needs, and your endless self-centered demands? / Why should a member of my gender interact with yours on an equal basis at all?"
-- demands "equality" while at the same time also demanding government intervention in the form of 'positive discrimination' (Affirmative Action, VAWA, etc.)?
And then goes whining and complaining that 'chivalry is dead' when men actively avoid them and their acidic, confrontational personalities?
'Positive discrimination' is STILL discrimination -- so someone is still being discriminated against, no matter how much of a spin is put on it.
So when women gleefully take away men's opportunities, hopes, and dreams while denying them protections under the law at the same time -- all hypocritically in the name of "equality" -- don't expect men to show any interest in women's protection or well-being.
Women chose "Big Daddy" Government over good, decent men -- so good, decent men 'owe' women NOTHING.
The problem is that there are very few genuine "right women" and many women who know how to mimic the "right women".
This is true. The mimicry usually occurs in the 30+ woman screaming toward The Wall. All of a sudden, she is demure, kind, personable, accessible, approachable, and angling for marriage. She doesn't even know she's doing it. Her biological imperative drives her to it.
deti
One reason to learn Game is defensive: so one understand the true nature of females in this wasteland.
Currently, most men buy into one of two delusions:
1) That AW are nurturing, caring and loving and that all one has to do is find the right woman and it is happy-ever-after. This group includes both traditional romantics and the vast majority of manginae.
2) That there is a sexual revolution going on per "Playboy" and that all one has to do to join the orgy is close one's eyes and jump off the high dive at the deep end of the pool.
Game at least awakens men to what is really going on with AW. I won't say it is the Red Pill. Rather, it is a roadmap, a guide to the hazards of navigating the femiMatrix.
And if that's all it is, then, since you mentioned Titanic, it would appear that the Roissyite Game is about nothing more than getting the most and the best sex partners one can get while Titanic is sinking.
Precisely.
The ship is going down.
Rather than figuring ways to save the ship, a lot of guys are looking for ways to save themselves.
Honestly, the whole "women and men have devolved" thing shouldn't be surprising to anybody; I figured that out some time ago. The idea that people "only marry within their ranks", especially as far as looks go, has always been overdone to a silly degree; Matt Damon married a bartender, Elizabeth II's uncle married a twice-divorcee. Looks especially can have fairly little to do with mating, especially since everyone's taste differs. The positive aspect of game is getting men to be confident, assertive and socially successful again. Other than this, it's often a vastly layered concept that differs, either in small ways or large ways, from one practitioner to another.
7man-you're deluded.You're just another sucker buying this nonsense that some good conman is pushing to the gullible.
You ever see that Mystery guy in his floppy dollar store hat? The females I know wouldn't want to be in the same room with him. He looks like some homeless bum.
All of these are interesting points, and make sense. In answer to the question of why should men be involved with women in the West: it's your choice dude. If you find a good one who matches you on a deep level (not looks or finances), stick with each other. If not, that's cool too.
One problem I have with this analysis is that it reduces people to two very distinct genders that are based on very much over interpreted biological psychology. These assertions from this area of psychology are only THEORIES- not fact. And as all of psychology is basically a collection of theories to explain human behaviour, these assertions will never be fact. New research and experimentation update our knowledge continuously. Gender is a construct, that's why there is now the pronouns: he, she, and ze, some people identify as other than male or female, maybe both, maybe neither. And as inter-sex people have always existed, there are also not just two sexes either. This is not a modern Western phenomenon, just google two-spirit, hijira, or transexuals.
Greddy-you read some story about a handful of freaks in Japan and you think that everyone is now a grass eater? lol
Anon 11.07-I can see that you know little about females. It's the young ones who have the best personalities and who have not reached an age where they have become cynical. You may want to find a better class of female if you're having problems with the young ones.
"This is true. The mimicry usually occurs in the 30+ woman screaming toward The Wall. All of a sudden, she is demure, kind, personable, accessible, approachable, and angling for marriage. She doesn't even know she's doing it. Her biological imperative drives her to it."
Deti, I think that's not true. Women speak with other women about who makes the best retirement plan. The complicated social dance where women introduce their partners at social functions is not something completely random.
The ones making the most excuses for a guy others can see is a bad fit, is the one most in love.
In other words:
The more behaviour she wouldn't tolerate from anyone else, she takes from her guy, the more she loves him.
If she doesn't love him much, she'll find fault in everything he does.
@Anonymous 21 February, 2012 23:22
"I can see that you know little about females. It's the young ones who have the best personalities and who have not reached an age where they have become cynical. You may want to find a better class of female if you're having problems with the young ones."
You've already said that the young ones are the qualitatively best ...
and then you say they aren't the best?
I hope you can explain your statement, from what I read ... you don't make sense.
Kool beans Marky, you've hit a nerve!
Enough to bring the fem-trolls back to say "gender is a social construct."
Bullshit subversion words from an idiot.
Oh yes, and the implied
NAWALT.
You've got em rolling in the aisles on this one buddy.
You know why?
Because no matter how many 'gender studies' a woman takes she still wants and
needs a man, she just hates the idea so much!
Rather than correct her own flawed ideology she attempts to use 50 cent
meaningless words to compromise the raw truth when confronted with it.
GOOD JOB
On a rougher note for the anon feminist:
Referring to someone as "dude" is derogatory and implies an addled mind via drug use.Bitch.
Also, I've never heard of your fictitious word "ze" we call them IT.
Or alternately "deviants"
Your subversion,no matter how 'educated' doesn't fly with us "hetero-normative
cis gendered (SANE)
people.
What is it with these professional feminists that insist we molly coddle the sodomites and muff diving perversions?
Yet the worst thing women like to call aloof men is
"Queer."
They are double minded reprobates to a woman.
How do you know when a woman is lying?
Follow the money!
@6.11- I said that he should stay with the young ones because they are less cynical but that if the young ones he knows still seem to be a bad lot then he needs to find a better selection somewhere. Not go with older females.
anon writes 'Once in an LTR the male is demoted to beta.'
Everyone is demoted to a beta after living with someone. Think of the biggest Alpha you know whether it's Bill Gates or Putin etc and imagine you were roommates with him.You would soon see that he was just a man who puts his pants on one leg at a time and does all of the ordinary things that everyone does.That alpha designation is how other people view us in public but in reality every man does about the same things. So that female who viewed you as an alpha soon changes when she sees you everyday.
The same is true with females. If you had the most beautiful and nicest female on earth she would soon just be another female after living with her.You become accustomed to a person and immune to their looks very quickly.
Anonymous "Greddy-you read some story about a handful of freaks in Japan and you think that everyone is now a grass eater? lol"
Yeah, a "handful" has the government openly worried, women complaining at EVERY opportunity and the MSM writing stories about it. I guess that's like the handful of "freaks" here in the US who are supposedly living in their parents basements playing video games all day that have every female "social" writer opining "where have all the good men gone?" You are truly the queen amongst the princess morons.
Anonymous "Greddy-you read some story about a handful of freaks in Japan and you think that everyone is now a grass eater? lol"
BTW - Show me where I said everyone. Moron.
Greddy-when female writers complain about the lack of "good" men they mean the lack of the top men they want. There are plenty of men available but to most females unless the man is in the upper levels they are invisible to them. If a female was in an expensive restaurant she'd notice the owner and the busboy would be invisible to her even if she was just a dumb secretary.
"Professional feminist" huh? Not old enough to be a professional. (And as I'm so close to a teenager still, no one will likely believe it even when I become one). And I come from a very low background (as in poor from a third world country), I'm self educated. Also calling me an idiot, or that my brain is drug addled: how childish your counter-arguments happen to be. Assuming anything about my identity or character from your own biased opinion and with no evidence is a FALLACY (look it up), and just makes you look ridiculous.
Why did I say the word "dude"? Because I call everyone dude. It's the same as saying "buddy", or "man" to me. I was just saying that live your life and enjoy it, if you find someone, good, if you don't, still good.
I am defending those who fall outside of hetero-normative models because they count as people too. I may not be part of their lifestyle, but I believe in defending peoples' rights to live the best way they know how. As long as they're not hurting anyone, why should it matter to you? Why the MGTOW movement gets a lot of flack is instead of simply going your own way, you attack women in the process, why become what you despise? Some of you just sound like the militant feminists you claim are so evil: you bad mouth women, talk about how useless they are, but still want them around for sex, or to cook and clean for you. You would love a sweet wife who loves you. You still want us, if you didn't, you wouldn't need to have this movement, you would just quietly disappear.
And you know what? We still want you too. Most people just don't want to admit it. I want my partner, he makes me happy and I love him. I just want to make him happy. We're kind to each other. The true feminists just wanted the ability to be seen as an equal partners to their boyfriends and husbands, they want to be able to play sports and work and be opinionated without being automatically denounced as "deviant".
True feminists want the men who ARE uncomfortable with being the strong providers without emotion, to relax and just be themselves. That's why I don't join the "sisters" as you call them, I do what works for me, I just like who I like, and if they give me my space to be myself, then we're good, I would do the same from the get-go.
And really? You resorted to calling me a bitch? Did I say anything to warrant you being so mean?
"And I come from a very low background (as in poor from a third world country), I'm self educated."
Um, no. There are rich people from third world countries too.
"Self-educated" has no meaning, you learnt from somewhere. You didn't invent English by yourself.
"Also calling me an idiot, or that my brain is drug addled: how childish your counter-arguments happen to be. Assuming anything about my identity or character from your own biased opinion and with no evidence is a FALLACY (look it up), and just makes you look ridiculous."
Right now we can assume you win your arguments by volume, not reason. a VERY typical woman.
"I am defending those who fall outside of hetero-normative models because they count as people too."
Undergraduate in Women's Studies? Planning for stable employment?
"As long as they're not hurting anyone, why should it matter to you? Why the MGTOW movement gets a lot of flack is instead of simply going your own way, you attack women in the process, why become what you despise?"
MGTOW doesn't hurt anyone ... except women looking for men as walking wallets. Who then complain to government that men not marrying are psychologically disturbed. That then send more men to jail under crazy women's "eye-rape" charges.
"Some of you just sound like the militant feminists you claim are so evil: you bad mouth women, talk about how useless they are, but still want them around for sex, or to cook and clean for you."
Eh. You could say the same thing about some women. They want us for the sex and the wallet too, but don't want to relate to us in any way.
"You would love a sweet wife who loves you. You still want us, if you didn't, you wouldn't need to have this movement, you would just quietly disappear."
Ya right. You women won't let us disappear, because many of you need a walking wallet, or someone to blame for their bad choices (you chose the players).
" I want my partner, he makes me happy and I love him. I just want to make him happy. We're kind to each other."
Good. Tell your other women friends to be nice to good men. Unless of course you have no spine to do what is right.
"True feminists want the men who ARE uncomfortable with being the strong providers without emotion, to relax and just be themselves."
Until the divorce ass-raping since "a real man would provide for me and let me lounge around"
"That's why I don't join the "sisters" as you call them, I do what works for me, I just like who I like, and if they give me my space to be myself, then we're good, I would do the same from the get-go."
Very selfish attitude there. "As long as I got mine, y'all can go to hell".
"And really? You resorted to calling me a bitch? Did I say anything to warrant you being so mean?"
You should hear some of the things women call men. Some even make up false rape accusations against guys they don't like.
How many false rape accusations happen against women? Come back with the answer, please. I love a woman who can take on a challenge and succeed.
Lads, working in a university provides some perspective on what young men are thinking. Often hear them telling each other not to help female students as they're now viewed as nothing but competition.
From what I observe, it's pretty much Game over. These young guys can't stand women on any level.
Delete all feminist comments on this website ASAP. Especially Anonymous 22 February 2012 23:03. She reminds me of a friend I used to have. Aaarghhh.
Anon said, "The true feminists just wanted the ability to be seen as an equal partners to their boyfriends and husbands, they want to be able to play sports and work and be opinionated without being automatically denounced as "deviant"."
What you mean to say is that feminists want women to be able to act like men (do the things that men do) without being seen as men.
I guess that women like that would have to have a very feminine/sexy body just to be recognizably feminine. Women who don't act feminine and who don't look feminine just aren't going to be seen as feminine by most guys. They might call them deviant, or probably just ignore them.
I don't see how that moves us forward toward better relations between the sexes, let alone sexual fulfillment.
I think everyone is going to be more sexually fulfilled when men act like men and women act like women.
OOH! I struck a nerve! First off, Susie, trying to simply shut me up, is not fighting fair, come up with an actual counter-argument next time.
Bartholomew, I seem to have not said my full piece. I don't think women should act like men, I think all people should be able to be themselves without fear of being ridiculed if they happen to fall outside of social norms. This would apply to both men and women. Women's contributions such as craft, cooking, at-home remedies, etc. should be as highly regarded and practiced as mechanics, sport, etc.
P Ray, I have to say that I rather like you. It's nice to have someone reasonably debate with me, and not just resort to throwing out insults, so thank you.
I am just going to clarify one thing quick: I only use all-caps as there is no option to italicize words, it was only a stylistic choice.
I know there are rich people in third world countries, my family happens to not be one of them, we were very poor, this is why we left. I prefer my undergrad in Science, I agree that Women's Studies is fluff. And My philosophy is more along the lines of: as long as you aren't hurting anyone, I accept you as you are, go live your life how you want and need to, and I'll go live mine. If anyone needs help, we should help them. I advocate for better mental health support, especially after spending my life watching so many men and women mindlessly destroy themselves. I think you would have to agree that a major problem in poor communities is the tendency to self-medicate with alcohol. And I agree, false rape charges are horrific and devastating, but so is being ignored and disbelieved. I know boys who have been the victims of this (it's such a disgusting thing that males cannot be seen to be sex abuse victims, they can only be the perpetrators), as well as girls. I've seen how much they change afterward, how hard it is to gain some sanity after the attack. You know something though? False-rape accusers SHOULD be punished! How dare they take away the legitimacy of real rape victims outcries?!
I do tell my friends to be nice to their men, my mother even gave me the advice that the most important thing me and my partner could do for each other was to be kind to each other and let each other be ourselves. I actually don't need to tell my best friends anything, especially the one who is like me and practically married. Both me and my partner are friends with her BF, and trust me, they are almost irritatingly sweet to one another. Her BF often comments on how sweet she is when I talk to him, she comments on how wonderful he is. That's how true love is.
"The true feminists just wanted the ability to be seen as an equal partners to their boyfriends and husbands, they want to be able to play sports and work and be opinionated without being automatically denounced as "deviant"."
The reason that the "true feminists" are not treated as equals is because the moment that some guy tells an off-color joke, the "true feminist" will turn on the tearducts and run to men for protection, per typical female stereotype.
The men to whom they run may be a boyfriend, or the government who will provide them with "sexual harassment" laws.
Or perhaps the "true feminist" will go into a vagina monolog, or a slutwalk. Men (and women who are not "true feminists") do not behave in these irrational fashions, nor engage in such hysterical behaviors.
Is this what "true feminists" mean by "equality?" You get to play with the big boys, but the moment the sh*t hits the fan, you can fall back on stereotypical female manipulations?
One problem I have with this analysis is that it reduces people to two very distinct genders ...
Supposing your teenage daughter came home from her gym class and told you that a bunch of guys got into the shower room and asked her to pass the soap. You'd say, "No problem, because 'gender is just a construct'?"
Uh huh.
Perhaps you would tell her to next time not be so "hetero-normative?"
The reason for the reduction to two "genders" is that there are only two "genders."
New research and experimentation update our knowledge continuously.
What you mean to say is, more feminist pseudo-science which selectively chooses verbiage to demonstrate pre-approved conclusions. Or a bunch of academics footnoting each other, herd fashion.
Gender is a construct...
Wrong.
Gender is a reality.
Feminism is the construct. It uses social and legal pressures to require men and women to treat each other in ways which defy any kind of natural order, as well as sanity.
I wanted to continue this rant:
[true feminists] want to be able to play sports and work and be opinionated without being automatically denounced as "deviant"...
Just as a lot of people want to be able to tell the truth and not be automatically denounced as a "sexist" or "hetero-normatist" (whatever that might mean). Look at Larry Summers, president of Harvard, forced out of his job because of a statement he made about the differences in womens' and men's scientific potentials.
Is this what "true feminists" mean by equality: anyone who deviates from the party line loses their job?
Why don't you explain the hypocrisy here, that "true feminists" want to be able to speak freely, yet will boot the boot down on any who dares dissent? And Summer's not the only one who's been victimized this way.
Truth is, feminism has become another system of oppression.
Time for a revolution.
How does a man deal with sexual liberation? The same way Lot dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah. We can’t impose our will on immoral people. We can only lead by example: turn our backs to them and seek Jesus’ remedy, which is marriage and fidelity or abstinence.
Paul Henri
@Paul Henri
"We can’t impose our will on immoral people."
You mean you can't _directly_ impose your will on immoral people.
By refusing to deal with them recklessly and constantly watching how they act and not what they say, you are requiring them to behave properly if they want you around.
The other thing may be to sign on the marriage form that financing the treatment of diseases and complications as a result of fornication before the marriage is not something that you agree to.
'Cause from what I know, women getting married in white and swearing holy vows, mean they are agreeing to the penalties of lying under oath and devaluing the marriage.
Should someone who previously slutted around, get her health bill paid for by the man she finally gets married to, who may not have given her that condition?
(Perhaps that is the reason why testing men for infectious viral diseases transmitted sexually is something that is relatively ignored, as it would make it easier for the men who enter a marriage uninfected to quickly realise that her condition, was not of his making)... and that "in sickness or in health" is only really applicable in conditions of environmental factors or where reasonable care was taken (read, didn't get that disease or condition by previous promiscuity).
Feminism is a construct. True. Genders are NOT a construct. Also true. Gender Roles, however, ARE a construct. As many commentators across this blog as a whole have unwittingly pointed out, the entire narrative has been authored by men. Religions, political systems (which I feel are one and the same, but that's another discussion), psychology, all of it.
I have spent my adult life thus far in higher ed (and no it has not been in "women's studies" or "womyn's <--never heard that term prior to this blog btw). I have gone to college, grad school, and I now teach. There is most definitely a glass ceiling for women in higher ed. That much I can confirm.
Anyone, male or female, born after, let's say 1970, has been brainwashed in this Men vs Women culture/battle. I want out. I don't subscribe to any "ism" (except for maybe agnosticism); and certainly don't to any radical "ism." Wanting things like equal pay for the same job and to be recognized as having talents that go beyond cooking, keeping house, washing your socks and flower arranging does not make me a man-hater.
We no longer live in a time where young women sit at home under their parents' roof until they get married. That just doesn't fly. That means we have to DO SOMETHING with our lives… other than fill our hope chests while we wait to fulfill our male-authored destinies as housewives. "Society" may very well have functioned more smoothly in the days of Ricky and Lucy, but today "society" no longer equals Just Men.
Women have brains, talents, passions, and things to contribute. We really do. Some men pine for the perceived bliss of the post Cold War era of domesticity… but if women were so happy confined to their homes, then why were they being fed Valium by the truckload? There must be some reasonable, happy medium. How far do you wish to turn back the clocks? How about back to the days of Shakespeare when all female roles were played by prepubescent boys because women weren't allowed in the profession? If so, you'd better get used to embracing the idea of 1) watching boys in drag or 2) never seeing another film or TV program (even the ones that meet your standards;) because yes, even Acting requires one to leave the house. We women can't have it both ways. Agreed. Well neither can you.
I am empathetic to some of the issues discussed across this blog - some of which I really was not all that aware or conscious of (having never been married yet or had children) such as paternal rights, etc. I also see the way I was trained to emasculate, belittle and generally "not need" men <-- though most of you would choose not to believe me were I to tell you that I don't actually feel that way.
What confuses me is the anger directed solely toward women with regards to the latter (and other similar issues). As far as I know, law makers are still by and large men. Congress = mostly men. Ninety percent of the power elite are still men. The producers, directors, writers of the male-bashing TV and film industry are for the most part… you guessed it: men. And that Ameriskank clothing that at once offends and arouses you? Designed by men. Men invented the corset. Frederick Mellinger invented the first "sexier" push up bra prototype. And those painful things called high heels to make women's butts stick out more to your liking? Male invention. As for the more "traditional" societies of the world… Ever seen what a bound foot looks like un-shoed?
I guess I just think some of your guns are pointed in the wrong direction.
-A Different Anon
Paul Henri, men wrote the bible.
-A Different Anon
26 February, 2012 22:51
Quick protip for you:
Stop confusing equity feminism with gender feminism.
It makes it very hard to believe you are after equal treatment when you are only citing the reasonable things (equity feminism), while ignoring false rape accusations (gender feminism), paternity fraud (gender feminism), divorce theft (gender feminism), comparatively lenient treatment before law for the same crimes (gender feminism).
Another protip for you: most if not all the editors of the fashion and gossip magazines and models too, that women buy: ARE WOMEN.
How's about you have something to say to them? Or are you worried that the "Mean Girls" will annihilate you?
If that is the case, you are simply screaming for a better outcome, without putting in any effort. Seems a bit, you know, lazy.
Note that many/most women keep confusing the two so that they can keep the moral high ground in any argument.
Conflation happens to be a very dishonest argumentation technique.
Are you a dishonest person, A Different Anon 26 February, 2012 22:51?
@ -A Different Anon
26 February, 2012 22:51
"Congress = mostly men. Ninety percent of the power elite are still men. The producers, directors, writers of the male-bashing TV and film industry are for the most part… you guessed it: men."
Does it occur to you that women are terrified of taking charge there because if they failed it would be an indictment on feminism?
Sometimes the person sitting back is only doing so because it makes it easier for them to stick arrows into someone actually making a difference, or elevates themselves by criticising such a person without having to step up themselves.
And to "men can change this since they have the power" ...
um, no.
Women make up more voters than men.
So they can keep voting themselves entitlements.
After all, votes are what count in a democracy, amirite?
It was a rough morning using my patriarchy to force 35 women to wear high heels.
(because I like the butt to protrude)
Even rougher was inspecting those 45 women to make sure the push up bra was in place!
They fought like hell!
Poor thing,her body wants a man, but her femwashed mind resists.
P Ray, what makes you think I'm confusing "equity feminism" with "gender feminism" just because I chose to state the things that matter to me? I didn't identify myself as a "feminist" at all. That's your label. What I am is a humanist. You guys have so much anger, I don't really even know how to process it. But ok, I'll give it a go…
Here are what I think are your (MRM's) legitimate gripes/issues (yes, I know it's possible I'm overlooking one or more; please don't jump down my throat):
1. Alimony (get a prenup)
2. Having to pay child support after a divorce for children you did not father. And honestly, I can tell you I DID NOT KNOW this ever occurred. As I stated, I've not been married yet and have no children. I would have thought child support in such a case would only come into play if the man had adopted the children he did not father.
3. False Accusations. Though I do have to tell you I seriously doubt the statistics on this that the MRM comes up with are anywhere near accurate. Nevertheless, a false accusation should be criminal because it can destroy someone's life. Just like many people who are innocent lose their lives on death row. I'll point to the recent case of Troy Davis (RIP).
4. Affirmative Action. Btw, this affects me too. I'm a woman, but I'm still white. You would have my sympathy 100% on how it effects you, if you were willing to acknowledge the reverse-affirmative action (for lack of a better word) that plagued women for a very very long time: men getting the job across the board, just because they are men. And I tell you the truth, in my arena (higher ed) men get preferential treatment for both tenure and promotions - even when the woman's resume and accomplishments far outshines the man's. I'm not saying it's that way in every walk of life. Surely it's not. But in MY dept, it's an Old Boys Network for sure.
5. Male-bashing, belittling, emasculating, etc. I'm with you on this 100% EVEN THOUGH I know I've I've done it in my life. It is how we are raised in this day in age to treat you. It's not right. I don't agree with it. And I've tried to raise my level of consciousness where that is concerned.
6. Paternity rights. No one should use children as a pawn to hurt the other. I believe parents should have split custody (and responsibility) except in cases where one parent (either one) is deemed a danger to the kid(s).
Here's where I don't agree with you (MRM):
1. The all-encompassing hatred and judgement of all women.
2. The belief or expectation that we're all going to do the aforementioned things to you. We're not. That's no different that assuming every man is a rapist just because he's a man and we're taught to fear you.
3. The 'You against Us' mentality. Believe it or not, I get along with most men I encounter. I don't have designs on him, see a "meal ticket," judge him by the size of his wallet, or any of these other things. I'm picky about who I date… but that has to do with a man's character; nothing more. There are qualities that I think men have in abundance over women. Compassion (actually "mercy" would be an even better word) being one of them… even though we're supposed to be the "nurturers" and "caretakers."
4. The denial of female oppression (perhaps "suppression" would be an easier word to swallow) of decades and centuries past.
5. Some of the statics put forth by the MRM are misleading. And some are downright inaccurate.
Conclusion: I'd love it if we could all just get along. Honestly, I would.
Anonymous 27 February, 2012 20:04
You missed the point of why those things were even mentioned...
All the glass cieling, old boy's network BS is simply projection, nothing more. Women are vastly more sexist than men, and know that if they were in charge they would always look out for each other, so they simply assume men must be doing the same. It never enters their heads that they dont advance because they are simply incompetent.
I want to respond to "A Different Anon" in detail since she brings up a lot of points which we see quite frequently.
Gender Roles, however, ARE a construct.
Then you would see no problem if the government restored military conscription, had an affirmative action program to ensure that 50% of all combat slots were assigned to females, and went as far as co-ed shower rooms ala "Starship Troopers"? Since gender roles are a "construct" there would be no problem when you or your daughters got drafted and sent to Afghanistan?
Let's get real. Do you think that the differences between men and women are "roles" handed out by some central casting office? The term "gender roles" is a typical ivory tower meaningless term.
The primary differences between the sexes is that women can have children. And this sets up completely different dynamics between men and women, and what each can do. The reality is that a society which sent large numbers of its young women off to war would not last very long as it would be unable to produce sufficient numbers of children to compete with the next tribe, kingdom or empire.
Please note that even with all the rigging that the government does via affirmative action and womyn's studies and grants and special programs and all the rest, men still make the vast majority of scientific and technological developments. And men are still doing the majority of warfighting for this country.
the entire narrative has been authored by men.
Right, and as long as men were in control of these things, then we had civilization. But what we have seen in recent decades is the "narratives" have been rewritten according to feminist orthodoxy.
Have you ever wondered why no civilization has ever been built by women? Or why our civilization today is on the skids with such things as exploding numbers of illegitimate children, or skyrocketing public debt, or collapse of infrastructure, or inability to control the borders? Perhaps it is because a feminized society lacks the leadership and drive to deal with these things.
[rant continues]
[rant continued]
We no longer live in a time where young women sit at home under their parents' roof until they get married.
Historically, women worked on farms and in factories and in coal mines. It was only in the 19th century, thanks to the Industrial Revolution (a creation of men, by the way--how about a little gratitude?), that women could be housewives. Let us note that it was women in the 19th century who pushed the idea that women were too fragile for the workplace and needed to stay at home while hubbie trudged off to the assembly line.
As for wanting things like equal pay for the same job, this has been the law for decades. But when women find that they can not compete with men because of inherent differences, they demand that the government rig the system via "comparable worth" type of regs. By the way, do you think that women should be required by law to have the same on the job death-injury rates as men, since that goes with the higher pay?
And what is the Number One complaint men have to hear from women today? That women want to get married but there is a lack of "good" men. Now let's put aside the insult to the vast majority of men (those labeled as "ungood"). If women do not want traditional "gender roles" then what right do they have to complain about not being married? You want to be independent? You want to be liberated from patriarchal oppression? Fine. Men are obliging you by not oppressing you with marriage. Stop complaining.
As for "glass ceilings," no such animal. Most women have a hard time getting to the top of their fields because of inherent differences between the sexes. Most women lack the drive to get into that rarefied upper atmosphere, no doubt owing to differing hormonal systems, neural networks, and everything else.
I'll note that the IQ spread for men is much wider on the bell curve, so men have more geniuses as well as more in the low IQ end. Hence, men will rise to the top of any field requiring high levels of smarts. The median IQ of Fortune 500 CEOs is circa 150. It's not that there are no women who have IQs in that range, it's just that they are very rare.
Again, an inherent different, not some "gender role."
But feminism can not deal with these inherent differences between men and women. So they go running to the government to rig the system via affirmative action and every other manner of state coercion.
[rant continues]
[rant continued]
I am empathetic to some of the issues discussed across this blog - some of which I really was not all that aware or conscious of ...
And the reason for not being conscious of these issues is that we live in a feminized society, where female complaints, no matter how trivial or irrational, become matters of concern to the media, to academia, to the government, to religion, etc.
Case in point: why has it become a federal case to make an off-color joke at work or on campus in the presence of women? Yet at the same time, feminists can go into hysterical monologues about their vaginae with public funding? See no double standard there?
As far as law makers being men:
Q: What is the biggest threat to me in power?
A: Other men.
Politicians, media moguls, clergy, university satraps, whomever, all these men want to keep down any competition from other men. So they promote feminism as a way to displace lower ranked men from the workplace, from academia, even from their own homes. As a result, you get a fragmented society, with tens of millions of females dependent upon the government for everything from child support to protection from off-color jokes in the workplace. Meantime, more men end up in jail on trumped up charges, or enserfed to some female for children whom he will never see.
And if the workplace is 51% female, and those females lack the drive to rise to the top (owing to inherent differences between the sexes), it makes the position of men in power that much more secure. When was the last time that women led any kind of armed revolution?
And what else do men in power gain from ratting out lower ranking men? Well, what did Bill Clinton get from Monica Lewinski?
Truth is, women are being used in a giant sucker play. While you may claim to be against radical feminism, you use its rhetoric and indulge in all the advantages it offers--while not even being aware of how men are being ground down by that system.
Let me also note that too many men buy into this game. They think that by supporting equality for women, that women in return will treat men as human beings, starting with women picking up their half of the tab when dating to females not using sex as a means to extort 18 years of child support.
How's that working?
So more men find themselves reduced to the level of walking ATMs, and more men decide to withdraw from a system rigged against them. And there are other men who are rebelling against this system: hence the men's rights movement (MRM).
Time for a revolution...
[end rant]
Ok Burton. Men are powerful, superior, do everything, know everything… and women are scum and lowly baby makers. There. Are you happy now? :)
"And men are still doing the majority of warfighting for this country." <<Men start wars, Burton. Name me a war started by women.
As I stated, but apparently you are too attached to your OWN masculinist propaganda, there most definitely is a glass ceiling in my field. I'm sorry that the knowledge of that is something you cannot accept.
A woman who ISN'T a man-hater is easily converted by visiting this blog. Congratulations. You're a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ramble on.
It just may be that we are alienating some women by the stridency of our postings. But the reality is that men have to get angry. Men are way too complacent about what is being done to them in this wasteland. From anger comes activism.
This is something that feminists need to consider, by the way. You can only push men so far and when the backlash comes...
Ok Burton. Men are powerful, superior, do everything, know everything… and women are scum and lowly baby makers. There. Are you happy now? :)
Well, again, why don't you explain to us why women in the Western world, despite having legal equality, do not produce 51% of the engineering, scientific, industrial, etc., accomplishments that men do. And this with all the affirmative action, government-corporate grants, you-go-grrrrl media, sycophantic male feminists, etc., in support.
For example: how many serious technological innovations have come out of womyn's studies programs? I'd hazard a guess that the engineering department of any cow college has more technological patents registered than all the womyn's studies programs on the fruited plains.
Men start wars, Burton. Name me a war started by women.
First, what is wrong with starting wars? The only way you get civilization is by building large political entities, and these require wars for their establishment and their defense. Would you prefer to be living as a nomadic herder, or in a Neolithic village? (See "Guns, Germans and Steel.")
Second, the current US war in Afghanistan is kept going in no small part because of feminist pressures to bring equality to Afghan women. And let us not forget the demands to bomb Serbia to stop the alleged "rape camps." Of course, feminists are not marching down to the recruiting stations and demanding the male privilege of serving in the infantry.
It's the same old female game of "let's see the men fight." And you have to wonder how many wars were started because of similar female manipulation. Ask Achilles.
...there most definitely is a glass ceiling in my field.
What is your field? Do you have evidence you are being discriminated against simply because you are a woman? If so, please state here and now that evidence so we can discuss this in the open.
But this gets back to one of my hobby horses: feminist ideology is being substituted here for rational analysis. When the outcomes do not match the ideology, turn up the loudspeaker volume instead of admitting that the ideology is wrong.
"Men start wars, Burton. Name me a war started by women."
I'll give you 3.
The war in the Malvinas/Falklands.
The war in the Golden Temple.
The 6 Day War.
And that's just from recent memory.
Some might say the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with bringing liberation or equality, and everything to do with global hegemony.
I didn't realize that rape accusations worldwide were "false." Hmmm. I can assume everything found here on this list of news updates is hokey pokey made up stuff too, right?:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/stop-violence-against-women
Achilles is a fictional character, just like that malevolent, bearded man in the sky.
Yes, when women are routinely passed over for tenure and promotion despite superior accomplishments and qualifications, that's proof positive of an Old Boys Network. I don't think I can simplify it any better than that.
P Ray, did you think I wouldn't google those… just like you did??
The 'You Against Us' mentality is really a shame, because yes, it is alienating.
As I said, I am sympathetic toward your legitimate gripes. But the propaganda coupled with the sweeping generalizations make it difficult to engage in meaningful discussion.
I wish you well :)
To your link:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/stop-violence-against-women
How come there is no stop violence against men campaign?
After all, more men than women die in the course of work.
You'd think that women would want to address this glaring omission.
I didn't need to google those things,
I'm fully aware that women are very capable of cruelty: During the Korean War, American soldiers were terrified of being captured ... by North Korean WOMEN.
My education was more comprehensive than yours.
It is a you against us mentality,
because women want chivalry when it suits, and equality when it suits.
And of course, at the end of it all, the taxpayer pays for her choices.
I look forward to the day when more women are occupying well-paid positions.
'Cause they'll then be paying the welfare of all their feckless sisters.
Maybe then they'll learn.
Or maybe the reason they want men to occupy the good positions is so that the men pay for everything, she gets to moan about a glass ceiling, while finding a man to marry up to, and complaining that women earn less than men.
Nice work if you can get it,
I will take more women seriously when they marry men shorter than them, less educated than them, and earning less than them.
Until then, the majority of feminists and feminism, are advocating female supremacy.
Regarding Amnesty International: I was a member years ago but dropped out owing to their being hijacked in part by radical feminists. They replaced their original goal -- defending prisoners of conscience -- with a leftwing political agenda. A case in point is their "violence against women" campaign. I refuse to support an organization which considers violence against men to be on the "ignore" list. Now, do you think that violence against men is legit? Do you think that men should be denied equal protection under the law? Because that is exactly what AI and a lot of other organizations are doing with their "violence against women" campaigns.
The fact that AI's "violence against women" campaign would be cited is one more example of the problem: too many people in the Western world are so indoctrinated that they can not recognize the obvious treatment of men as second class citizens at best by feminist influenced organizations.
I didn't realize that rape accusations worldwide were "false."
Raise your consciousness. See:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jamiranda/whyLie.htm
And note the bait and switch here. We go from discussing things in the USA (which I presume is Anon's country, maybe I am wrong) to conditions in the rest of the world. Why would you care about women in other countries more than you would care about men in the USA who are railroaded on false charges of rape?
Look at the Duke U lacrosse players. One reason they were nearly convicted of a false charge of rape is because of feminist hysteria on this topic, a hysteria which is unfortunately supported by too many "male" feminists.
Achilles is a fictional character, ...
The point, which if one bothers to read the "Illiad," is that much of it deals with the theme of men fighting over women, and the havoc which that creates.
Yes, when women are routinely passed over for tenure and promotion despite superior accomplishments and qualifications, that's proof positive of an Old Boys Network. I don't think I can simplify it any better than that.
Then you have no evidence which would hold up in a court of law (I have some experience in this field, by the way):
* Witnesses who can testify about deliberate discrimination?
* Physical evidence showing deliberate discrimination?
* Confessions by the perpetrators of deliberate discrimination?
Instead all you can come up with is some conspiracy theory about an "Old Boy Network."
Uh huh.
But of course, such concepts as due process, presumption of innocence, and rules of evidence are all part of that terrible male dominated world, exemplified by that patriarchal document, the Bill of Rights--after all, no women had a hand in writing it.
Instead, because someone feels that they had superior accomplishments but did not get tenure, then they can toss out wild accusations and besmich the reputations of innocent men. Feelings count. Facts are disposable.
See how we go from here to the Salem witch hunts (started by female hysteria) to the Duke U lacross false rape case? Such male concepts as evidence and due process mean nothing when a female feels that a crime has been committed.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason women were not "allowed" to compete with men is because when women are given too much power, they use it to tear down things like legal rights?
Ask the Duke U lacross players.
Last rant for now:
The thing is, anon, if you are really interested in a discussion with MRAs over these issues, then you need to drop the feminist party line. Virtually every last argument you have made repeats that part line. And repeating a party line is not dialog.
> (See "Guns, Germans and Steel.")
Obviously, I meant "Guns, Germs and Steel!"
Wives and children are the glue that holds society together. It makes men invested in the society around them. What happens when you have armies of unattached men with no investment in society? You have men who will not care what happens to that society or the women in it.
...today's men see no reason to sacrifice their lives for a feminist, PC-addled girl who thinks men are rapists.
These two comments are spot-on and sum up men's response well regarding today's liberated, empowered, American female.
Strangely, along with many of the other points broached, these topics are rarely discussed in everyday life. All the while, people wonder "What's wrong?" and refuse to answer the real questions for fear of ostracism in our ridiculously politically-correct, litigious country.
Yet, many men are noticing the 300-pound gorilla on their own and adapting their lives accordingly.
Reading and hearing comments from men living in "modern" nations and societies who have "progressed" beyond the timeless, immutable Biblical truths show that men notice the same flaws and reach identical conclusions.
This is good since it shows that there are many men out there who are waking up from their philogynous slumber.
Keep up the informative posts. People need to read these points because if people pretend that something is not broken, then they will never attempt to fix it.
The militant feminist hate movement has denigrated men -- white men especially -- for far too long, and there needs to be a reversal in their message.
It seems the men of this blog are incapable of following the line of their own discussions. Bait and switch? Burton it was you who derailed the discussion (of men starting wars) to the worldwide "false rape" epidemic you imagine. Let me point that out. You wrote the following:
And let us not forget the demands to bomb Serbia to stop the alleged "rape camps."
And P Ray, can you see how the operative word in the above is "alleged?" Can you see that the amnesty link provided was a direct response to the word "alleged" and not the "women are victims and men are not" statement you want to think it was?
The fact is, you are blinded by your own propaganda and party rhetoric.
By the way, could someone offer a link to some tangible hard evidence of this worldwide "false accusation" epidemic? Actually, never mind worldwide. Could someone offer a link to some tangible hard evidence of this nationwide "false accusation" epidemic? A link (or links) to a handful of stories does not an epidemic make. Can someone produce the dossier of hard evidence of thousands, nay, millions, of proven cases of false accusations please?
Burton, you were asked to name a war started by women. So yes, your literary reference was not satisfactory. I'll give P Ray a little credit. He tried his best to produce one.
Enjoy your cold nights with your blow up dolls and warm days with your maids, gentlemen :)
Guys --
Stop feeding the obvious feminist troll "Anonymous".
If you keep responding to her old Femborg arguments and her obvious refusal to understand ANY of our viewpoints, she will just keep on with her obvious stubborn refusal to try to understand what we men are REALLY about. She is here for the same old reasons any feminist comes here...
hmmm...
OTOH, we see in her statements a typical example of modern non-thinking feminism -- which relies on the same old tired cliches (e.g., in the vein of "you can't handle a strong woman", "you want to keep all women barefoot and pregnant", etc. , etc.), and endlessly recites the same old rants and complaints, propaganda, and typical circular arguments that have not changed for forty years. This presents an opportunity to see how feminism has not really changed it's 'raison d'etre' (I hope I spelled that right) since then.
I'd suggest to only spend the time that you can spare responding to her pointless feminist arguments and tirades, without straining your credulity or wasting your time on more important things.
But definitely do not waste your time trying to explain anything to her, for the same reasons that you shouldn't try to teach a pig to sing.
Ping Jockey: "her obvious refusal to understand ANY of our viewpoints"
I guess you can't read either, huh?
"you can't handle a strong woman", "you want to keep all women barefoot and pregnant", etc., etc.<-- I love men who put words in my mouth. Burton did it with his "where are the good men/ so stop complaining" bit. As if I once mentioned a lack of good men or that getting married was on my short list of things to do. P Ray followed suit. And now you.
All,
Anyone who questions your propaganda is immediately labeled a radfem. Isn't that right? Because all of you are incapable of dealing with people as individuals; you don't read; you don't listen; you're incapable of critical thought. You parrot your own party rhetoric quite well.
The bottom line is you despise us for who we are. <--That would mean ALL women.
I'm going to repeat that.
The bottom line is you despise us for who we are.
Your adherence to your own propaganda, cherry picking of tidbits to respond to, ignoring of the rest; your victim mentality despite being white males (the most privileged of the privileged), and your insistence that men alone are responsible for all that is good in the world and nothing that is bad (and that's delusional), tells me that the only thing a woman is good for in your world is maid and baby maker (preferably baby boys, I'm sure). The fact that the MRM in general, while crying unspeakable persecution, simultaneously objectifies women left and right, tells me that you still have sex drives… which is healthy. Of course, I'm sure each and every one of you have saved yourselves for marriage, right? Or is that yet another double standard we're not supposed to notice because men single-handedly built "civilization" as you say, through warmongering, as you concede? Oh wait wait wait… maybe it's more of that male-authored psychobabble that says "men are by nature not monogamous" so that's why the double standard. Yeah that must be it.
^^See how fun this??? Let's just keep going back and forth with the never ending "mommy it's his fault/ her fault" game. That sounds good.
Relax, I won't comment again. Then you won't have to go on "straining your credulity." Btw, we are now in the third wave of feminism. It's been around a lot longer than 40 years :)
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-common
This study is specific only to the UK, but what it states is that between 8-12% of all rape accustations ARE NEVER TAKEN TO TRIAL- it cannot conclusively say whether they were false or not. Very likely, victim shaming is to blame for this, as well, the unlawful dismissal of accusations by the investigating police. In fact, sometimes a rape case is dismissed just because the victim was under the influence or the accused was their partner. It is simply ASSUMED that that they cannot be victims, or in the case of certain Middle Eastern countries, 4 male witnesses must have been present. (Then how did the victim get raped? Should said men have stopped it from happening?)
There you go boys, all your false rape accusations are just that- FALSE! If you want to get behind a cause for men, why not help out boys and men who have been the victim of rape themselves. Trust me, a rape survivor hardly wants to even admit it to themselves, much less parade it around.
Also have to love the idea that "men created civilisation". Last I checked wasn't agriculture the start of ALL civilisations? Wasn't the gathering of plants, and animal husbandry primarily WOMEN'S jobs? It would seem that your nice jobs in your modern cities are all thanks to women who decided it was far more healthy and beneficial to remain in one place, and not subject oneself to constant environmental changes from being nomadic.
Here, here to the other anon who told off you whining white boys. Stop crying because white male privilege has started to wane after oh, around the last 500 YEARS! All institutions and civilisations crumble and fall, usually from their own glutinous consumption and power (boy do those Romans know how to do it!), it's just time that things become a bit easier for other races, ethnicities, and sexes. We've gotten sick of being your servants.
Anon0223,
Depending on whose numbers you use, false rape accusations comprise anywhere from 9%-10% (FBI), approx 25% (USAF), to 43% (Prof. Eugene Kanin's study @ Purdue). They are DEFINITELY greater than the 2% figure put forth by Susan Brownmiller-a figure with NO BASIS IN FACT whatsoever, BTW...
MarkyMark
The reason to respond to Anon is that she repeats the same feminist propaganda line; therefore, it is useful to post the counterpoints not because she will accept them, but to give ammunition to MRAs who will be debating these points in other forums.
With that in mind:
False charges of rape: check out my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jamiranda/whyLie.htm
I have links to other sources for those who want to explore the topic further.
Burton, you were asked to name a war started by women.
* Egyptian Civil War, 1st century BC, Cleopatra allying with Romans against her brother.
* 3rd century AD Roman-Palmyran War (Zenobia, queen of Palmyra tries to seize the eastern part of the Roman empire).
* English attacks on Spain in the 16th century in the Caribbean and Iberian peninsula (Elizabeth I).
* Catherine the Great ordering Russian armies against just about everyone.
* Rani of Jhansi: she brought her kingdom into war against the British in India in 1857 when neutrality was a reasonable option.
* British intervention in World War I: British women started a campaign to brand as cowards any man who did not volunteer for the armed forces. This had an enormous effect in sending millions of men to their death and dismemberment.
* Rwandan bloodbath (egged on by females--no doubt claiming that they were afraid of being raped).
* Lynching and railroading of numerous men as a result of female hysteria over rape (Emmet Till, Duke U Three).
* Current Afghan insurgency: one reason it has been going so long is the Afghan reaction to the Coalition imposing feminist demands to liberate women. The Afghans see this as out-and-out imperialism and respond with armed resistance. Meantime, the feminists in the West who are demanding these policies are not volunteering for combat duty.
Oh yeah, almost forgot:
* War on Drugs. It has been women who have been the most strident in demanding the government go to war to stop people from using drugs. For example, take the feminist hysteria over so-called "date rape" drugs. I say "hysteria" because even though it's been largely demonstrated that the abuse of these drugs has been vastly exaggerated, feminists still keep pushing this line. It is women who demand a rollback of the Bill of Rights so that drugs can be fought. It is women who demand paramilitary SWAT teams kick in people's doors at midnight. And it is women who support such military measures as using the armed forces and mercenaries to attack drug producers in the Andes and the Middle East.
Next question?
Last FBI report I read said the rate of false rape accusations was between %5 and %85.
As for the latest hamster list from the fem-supremacist:
It's not my job to refute every false statement you make.
BTW-Women were never mens servants,but you are now definitely masters in the eyes of the law.
There is no question men have lost due process and are less than second class citizens in the courts.
This feminazi wants to discuss everything except the facts on the ground.
In short, hurling baseless
accusations based upon her "feelings."
Successfully wasting time and energy and diverting topics, but I enjoy it, it's good entertainment
to see how hard these supremacists go to justify themselves and also to attempt to subvert and divert legitimate arguments for mens awareness.
Now to play her game:
Show me the citations about how many rape reports are actually real!
You have none.
Here's a clue, according to the CDS and DPJ it's about %.02- %.2 of the population.
Or one in ten thousand.
A far cry from 3 out of 4, or whatever the lie of the day is.
BTW,constantly harping rape lies is a good way to get yourself divorced or otherwise left alone..
oh that's right: Opra told you so!
When people ask me why I make an issue out of women lying about rape, I call up statements such as this:
"Enjoy your cold nights with your blow up dolls and warm days with your maids, gentlemen :)"
Anon does not know what kind of relationships that the men on this forum have with women. But:
1) She immediately makes an utterly unsupportable claim that the men here do not have relationships with women. Perhaps because she feels this is so. Just as feminists believe that if a womyn feels that she was "seuxally harassed" she was "sexually harassed;" and if she feels that she was "raped" then she was raped. The point being that such things as evidence are to be disregarded. It's what a womyn feels that counts. And this is why the justice system has been traditionally skeptical of women's claims of "rape," and why such things as presumption of innocence have been a hallmark of due process.
In sum, if women (and feminized men) can make spurious claims about men's relationships with women, then women can also make up claims about being "raped."
2) Second, what does a man's relationships with women have to do with the veracity of his argument? Can Anon explain this one? Would you be more willing listen to a babe magnet like, say, Charles Manson? In the end, for feminists it comes down to their vaginae. Then they ask why men do not take them seriously.
In point of fact:
* Many MRAs are happily married or in long term relationships.
* Many MRAs are PUAs. If you, Jane Q. Feminist, has had casual sex recently, it just may be with a MRA who knows "game." Something you might think about, by the way...
* Many MRAs have had so many women in their lives that they have said "enough." They're on to all the female games and do not see what women have to offer as being worth the cost to get it.
* Many MRAs have been raked over by females (false charges of rape/DV, punitive divorce, child support for other men's children, ad nauseam.) Consequently, they have no desire to be in the company of women.
* And yes, there are many decent MRAS who have never hit a woman, never raped-or-sexually-assaulted a woman, who want to be loving husbands and fathers but are treated as sh*t by females in response.
Let me also add that many MRAs are actually women. They're in it because they love men, or have seen the men in their own lives destroyed by feminist policies. Something also you might think about.
Stop crying because white male privilege has started to wane after oh, around the last 500 YEARS!
1) Many MRAs are not white. Some of the most dedicated activists --and I know them personally -- are black and Hispanic and Asian men who have been raked over by a feminist dominated system. This is especially true of men who want to be fathers of their children but have been driven out of their households by the welfare state and the pro-female "family" courts.
2) The last 500 years have been the most glorious in human history. Men -- and I include men of all races -- have:
* Ended slavery.
* Built the modern industrial system which gives you a standard of living which would have been unthinkable in prior eras.
* Made it possible to rise above sustenance levels of agriculture, creating the surpluses which allow more people to engage in artistic and scientific endeavors.
* Developed modern medicine such that women do not die in childbirth excessively and we all get to live longer.
* Developed democratic ideologies which feminists have appropriated and abused.
* Invented the Internet on which you are now typing away.
* Opened up space travel.
Now why don't you tell us what women have accomplished in this same period? Has some womyn's studies program developed a new form of rocketry so humankind can make it to Mars? Or are they too busy monologing about their vaginae?
Last I checked wasn't agriculture the start of ALL civilisations? Wasn't the gathering of plants, and animal husbandry primarily WOMEN'S jobs?
No. You are confusing primitive hunter-gatherer societies with agricultural societies. Agricultural societies required a considerable amount of organization to work. You need scientific and engineering skills to set up irrigation systems and crop rotation, for example. (Crops will not grow because feminists conduct slutwalks, incredible as it may seem.) You need armies to defend your farmlands against raiders. You need some kind of central direction to make it all run, i.e., a patriarchal system of leadership. And the patriarchal system developed the laws and moral codes which kept everyone from reverting to a Hobbesian state of nature.
As evidence of this, there is no recorded historical example of women as a whole leading a society above hunter-gatherer level. All civilization was created by men. Remove men from the equation, and civilization collapses.
Don't believe this? Look at America's inner cities. Men are removed from the household by welfare state policies, by the war on drugs, by no-fault divorce, by female hypergamy. The result? Massive illegitimacy. Collapse of education. Inability to maintain infrastructure. Drug abuse. High crime rates. Hello, Hobbes.
Q: Why aren't all those female headed households producing a higher civilization?
A: Because it is men who produce and maintain civilization.
Ergo, men deserve their privilege.
How about a little gratitude?
Anon 02:23,
There is one very simple reason these guys do not get behind a cause for men or boys who have been the victim of rape themselves. The perps would still largely be other men. And that does not suit their agenda.
Dear Men,
I humbly ask your permission to offer my sincere apologies on behalf of my entire gender for the HEINOUS ATROCITIES we have committed upon yours. Crimes no woman in HIStory has ever nor could ever endure. Somehow, despite our feeble intellect and inferior everything, by some miraculous means, we managed to usurp your rightful male authority. I hope in earnest that science will soon perfect a method for male self-reproduction so that you can once and for all rid the world of us altogether. Then all you peace-loving men can finally lay down your weapons, join your weary hands across the globe, and sing Kumbaya. In the meantime, as reparations, please allow me to get the ball rolling with the female (aka "Ameriskank") internment camps. You guys here can manage them as a form of therapy for the horrible injustices you've personally suffered at the hands of womankind collectively. Having done that, I will then fling myself off the nearest bridge, post haste, because truly I do not even deserve to breathe your polluted air.
Sincerely,
Everywoman
Everywoman: you are having to deal with men here who do not buy into the feminist party line. Rather than being able to muster any kind of rational arguments in response, you resort to the typical female game of using emotion to manipulate the conversation--consider the crack about blow up dolls. Care to explain the logic behind that one, or is "logic" another weapon of patriarchal oppression--whereas female feelings and connection to emotions ought to count?
Are you proud of such feminist inventions as "vagina monologs" and "slutwalks?" Are these the things for which modern feminism is going to be remembered--while during the same era men pioneered the internet revolution and space program?
There is one very simple reason these guys do not get behind a cause for men or boys who have been the victim of rape themselves. The perps would still largely be other men. And that does not suit their agenda.
This is a feminist manipulative tactic: setting the agenda.
Q: Why should "rape" be the topic at all? Why not paternity fraud or false charges of rape?
A: Because "rape" as a political issue serves female interests. "Rape" is used to manipulate the conversation to avoid any criticism of women and instead turn men against each other.
You have to see "rape" as a political issue. Feminists use it to stigmatize all men as "potential rapists," and to gain privileges for women as designated "victims." Privileges such as allowing any female to destroy any man with a bogus charge (again, see the Duke U Three). And privileges like getting men to fight among themselves in a competition to "protect women" (see the White Ribbon campaign and similar mangina-ness).
This is why it is critical to push the issue of women lying about rape. If feminists claim that all men gain privilege from rape, since rape keeps all women in fear, the converse is true: that all women gain privilege from false charges of rape since this keeps all men on the defensive for fear of a false charge. So men have a right to shout this issue from the rooftops. Turnabout is fair play.
And of course, if we want to talk about "rape" then we might also talk about such things as:
* How women rape men physically by having them inprioned on bogus charges of "rape" or DV.
* How women rape men financially by lying about using birth control and then sticking them with 18 years of support for children they are legally forbidden to visit.
* How feminists rape academic and government integrity by promoting false statistics on rape-and-sexual-assault, and then use them to implement blatantly unconstitutional criminal justice policies.
* How feminists rape the Bill of Rights via speech codes (First Amendment), Lautenberg Amendment (Second Amendment), use of civil courts to enforce child support (Fourth and Fifth Amendments), dropping presumptions re evidence when it comes to "rape" accusations (Sixth Amendment), excessive fines for "sexual harassment" and child support (Eighth Amendment), as well as equal protection under domestic violence laws (Fourteenth Amendment).
And we are still waiting for you to list all the scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical inventions which have come out of womyn's studies programs.
And then compare them to the number of such inventions which have been produced by men in this same era.
Then we can talk about equality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ul-cZyuYq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjIpMcCohY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEaSAJgaLtQ
Dear Burton,
i have returned to answer to You. But first, allow me to apologize for my horrible behavior of the other day, in challenging You if i did so. i know it's no excuse, but i had forgotten to take my Yes Sir pill that morning. But let me assure You, i got in Big Twubble for that!
First, with regards to the He said/she said "she lied about the pill" dilemma: i know i'm just a addle-brained female but have You heard of the Condom? It's been on the market for a while now.
Second, with regards to the Industrial Revolution, i must in good conscience admit that You are correct -- You are always correct, in fact (*smiles warmly*) -- Men are indeed 100% solely responsible. Now Dear Burton, here's where i need your help. As You also lessoned me, prior to this Industrial Revolution, we were an agricultural society. One in which Boys grew up working alongside their Fathers. Yes? So, if You would, please explain to me how a movement having everything to do with empowering women is responsible for the "feminization" of Boys? It would seem that once Men Chose to leave the home for more industrious pursuits, this left Boys to be raised by their mothers.
These formative years of being raised in the home by their Stay At Home mothers, coupled with the deplorable conditions of female-rampant public education (as the "highly esteemed" esther viler outlines in her groundbreaking seminal tome), Boys don't have a fighting chance these days. Too bad there wasn't something more their Fathers could do to intervene. Like, i don't know… maybe take an interest in hands-on parenting?
i think it's high time that women were removed from the public education system and the public sphere altogether. i do see two possible problems with this, however. One is that, then all the girl children would in effect be raised by Men at school. Of course, that's easily remedied: we could just remove girls from school altogether. Really, the only intellectual skill they need to master is a basic reading level so they are equipped later in life to read their Husbands' daily list of instructions and tasks. And they can learn that at home. But the greater problem i see is this: teaching K-12 is a thankless job in exchange for a pitiful salary, and i really can't imagine too many Men willing to work for a school teacher's salary. Of course once all women have been removed from the profession, we could always double those salaries… but then we might run into having to admit to that pesky wage gap myth after all.
Even still, the question remains, once we get women permanently out of Men's hair and back in the home where they belong, how do we then limit their contact during those crucial first five years of development with the male children they carried, nurtured, bore and nursed? It would seem a possible solution that when couples have male children, that the woman leave the home and win the bread and the Man be a Stay At Home Father to his Son…. but that wouldn't be very "masculine," would it? Hmmm. Idea! What if Men hired Other Men to babysit their homes!? Not long term of course, because all Men need to get out into the world and make their mark. But maybe we could make it compulsory for Young Men, before entering college, to do one year of "service" being a Male role model to another Man's Son. It would be killing two birds with one stone as well -- because while He is in the Employer's home, He could also see to it that the Man's wife stays in line, is on task with her house work, and makes sure she always takes her Yes Sir pill… like i forgot mine the other day!
I'm thinking (i know i shouldn't) that if we really work together on this we might even be able to revoke the female vote and ability to own land!!!!
What do You think?!?!
@2.23
You have your "facts" all wrong about England. 88% of rape allegations are dismissed by the police and prosecutors and of the 12% that do go to trial they lose 1/2. So at least 94% of all rape accusations are FALSE.
And btw, the idea that you could rape your wife or gf, in the legal sense, is absurd. In the rare cases where men may coerce wives to have sex when they don't want to this is just bad behaviour, not a crime. It would be completely crazy to believe that a man who may have had sex with a wife or girl a thousand times to believe that the 1001st time was "rape".lol
If I went over to Marky's house and went in and took a beer from his refrigerator every day for 3 years and he said nothing but on the 1001st time he starts yelling that I'm robbing him and he's calling the cops it would be pretty ridiculous.It would be laughed out of court.
"Everywoman"-reparations mean $$$, billions of dollars.
And btw, real rape is very rare but just remember that even these rare rapists were brought up by females.If there are a few bad seeds around it was the mother's fault.
Wow 0:19/29 there really are humans as ignorant as you huh? So tell me, if your mom gets "false raped" are you just gonna bitch slap her back to the kitchen and tell her it's her fault? Some of you men are seriously disturbed. And probably dangerous. I think 'MarkyMarky and the Dumbass Bunch' about covers it.
Burton, I'll be honest with you - I'm not in the slightest bit familiar with "Slutwalks." Never heard of it. I'll have to google it. I have read Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues" though. Have you? There are an abundance of V-Day performances annually, but I would not suggest attending one of them to familiarize yourself with the text. These are often put on by amateur theatre groups and college theatre programs… so the acting and interpretations are usually quite cringe-worthy all around. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's bad theatre. Better to read the play script. Having said that, I detest whiny feminist rants as much as you do… though not for the same reasons. The reason I despise them is that 1. they cheapen the female struggle and 2. usually the ones ranting and raging have never been victimized themselves. Might I suggest Dario Fo and Franca Rame's co-authored "Female Parts" as alternate reading. As for your persistence in putting the word rape in "quotes," over and over again, this shows you mean to imply it's simply doesn't happen. Therefore, there is no discussion to be had here on that.
Anon 04 March 01:19, you pulled those stats out of your ass, just like most of the MRM stats. I'm going to explain something to you that your father never did: men and women are biologically and emotionally different. That tiny little hole you like to stick your dick into… it needs to be aroused in order to expand and accommodate you. If not, then ramming your dick into it HURTS. A LOT... even if she's allowed you to ram your dick in it for 3 years straight prior. Furthermore, I know that male-authored book of fairy tales called the Bible tells you that men own their wives bodies. But the law says something different :) In any case, I seriously doubt there's a woman alive who'd let you ram your dick in her for 3 seconds, much less 3 years, so what does it matter to you?
Anonymous at 01 March, 2012 02:41 said:
Stop crying because white male privilege has started to wane after oh, around the last 500 YEARS! ... it's just time that things become a bit easier for other races, ethnicities, and sexes. We've gotten sick of being your servants.
I have a question for you, and I mean this with all due respect.
You appear to have some antipathy for white men. Yet it has been white men in North America and Europe who have implemented the full feminist agenda: female suffrage, equal opportunity, affirmative action, women’s studies, VAWA, sexual harassment-spousal rape laws, etc. And if we go to Scandinavian countries, the whitest of the white cultures, we find that men have dispossessed themselves in favor of women by requiring political parties to run female candidates, and businesses to hire female executives via quota.
Meanwhile, in the parts of the world which are run by non-white men, such as many Islamic countries, we see women treated as second class citizens at best. In places like Saudi Arabia or Taliban-run Afghanistan, women are little more than chattel. If you go to sub-Saharan Africa, you find women are the target of mass rapes, with rape being used as a tactic of war.
Ever since white privilege ended in South Africa, that country has seen one of the highest rape rates in the world, with the vast majority of rapes being committed by blacks. If there is a “war against women,” then this war is being fought by non-white peoples.
And it is white dominated countries which are going to war to defend women. One US policy for Afghanistan and Iraq has been to support women’s rights. This has included promoting women’s involvement in elections and requiring the governments of these countries to have female officials.
Given all this, shouldn’t feminists be a little more appreciative of white dominated countries? Shouldn’t they be working in alliance with white men against the rebellion of people of color which you appear to support? How well do you think you, yours sisters and your daughters would fare under any of the non-white regimes of the world?
Yet it appears that you are demanding the overthrow of white culture, and its replacement by cultures that oppress women.
Can you explain this to us?
Thanks.
Having said that, I detest whiny feminist rants as much as you do…
For all the talk about "gender roles," feminists insist on playing the traditional female role of the eternal victim. Vagina monologs, slutwalks, and the rest of the agitprop play off of females displaying their sexuality, going into mass acts of public emotion (i.e., hysteria), attracting the attention of men, and then manipulating those males who are dumb enough to fall for this game. It may be the "male" feminists who march along in slutwalks and similar affairs. In some places, men wear high heels and march in protests against rape in symbolic emasculation. Or it may be the politicians who pass a VAWA or Lautenberg Amendment or IMBRA to "protect" women.
Consider "sexual harassment" regs. If women are so weak and helpless that they need protection from off-color jokes, then should they serve in the armed forces, or law enforcement?
As for your persistence in putting the word rape in "quotes," over and over again, this shows you mean to imply it's simply doesn't happen.
I put "rape" in quotes to indicate that I am not referring to any actual crime but to how feminists frame "rape" as a political issue. Let us not forget that feminists have distorted the meaning of "rape" all out of recognition. Thus, a woman in a short skirt is being "visually raped" by the men who oogle her. Or a woman in a courtroom who is subject to lawful cross examination is being "raped on the stand" when required to give her account of a sexual assault.
"Rape" as an issue is one more means by which feminists play out the traditional "gender role" of the female as victim. Again, the objective is to get males to compete to protect females.
If feminists truly want equality, then they would treat rape as any other crime. But that would mean surrendering their traditional female power of manipulating men.
As for "spousal rape," more men are taking women seriously on this number. Which is why more men are not getting married. They'd rather go the PUA route, or play the proverbial video game, than endanger a female by marrying her. Think about it. According to feminists, a woman is most in danger from her intimate partner: spousal rape, domestic violence, divorce which lowers a woman's standard of living (even if women initiate divorce most of the time).
If the feminist objective was to destroy marriage as the central institution of oppression in society, then they can be proud of their handiwork. But then let us not hear women complain because men do not want to get married.
"In any case, I seriously doubt there's a woman alive who'd let you ram your dick in her for 3 seconds, much less 3 years, so what does it matter to you?"
What is being said here? That females will reward men who agree with their political positions by granting access to their vaginae? And forbid any man who does not follow the party line from gaining access to their vaginae?
What the vagina monologists do is simply take the central female argument and give it a slightly more honest form by openly haranguing audiences with it. Rational debate does not count. The rules of logic do not count. All that counts is the vagina. Traditional female power has come never from rational exercise of the mind but from controlling access to vaginae. Thus, remarks like the one quoted.
For all the talk of liberation, too many feminists can not rise above the most primal level.
QED.
First, with regards to the He said/she said "she lied about the pill" dilemma: i know i'm just a addle-brained female but have You heard of the Condom?
Many women lie about using birth control, tell men that they need not use a condom, then extort 18 years child support from a man.
Many women find ways around condoms. For example, by puncturing them, or squeezing out the semen afterwards into their vaginae. The man is then extorted out of 18 years child support.
It feminists can push for "spousal rape" laws, then men should push for "spousal fraud" laws to jail women who play these games.
Fair is fair.
...explain to me how a movement [the Industrial Revolution] having everything to do with empowering women is responsible for the "feminization" of Boys? It would seem that once Men Chose to leave the home for more industrious pursuits, this left Boys to be raised by their mothers.
You are making absolutely on sense. Have you ever read a history book? The family was maintained throughout the Industrial Revolution and right up until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. It anything, it is post-industrial society which is leading to the disintegration of the family. And again, this is paralleled with the rise of the radical feminism of the 1960s and beyond.
Too bad there wasn't something more their Fathers could do to intervene. Like, i don't know… maybe take an interest in hands-on parenting?
Extremely difficult when all those Murphy Browns out there choose to have children without getting married, thereby not including a father in the household.
Extremely difficult when fathers are removed from their homes and children by divorce laws and "family" courts.
Extremely difficult when the welfare system pays women to have illegitimate children with multiple fathers.
Extremely difficult when all it takes is a woman's spurious allegation of "abuse" for the courts to remove a father from his house and children.
Even still, the question remains, once we get women permanently out of Men's hair...
Since I never called for getting women permanently out of Men's hair, this is a straw man (person?) argument.
What do You think?!?!
I think your attempts at irony are rather feeble.
"If you go to sub-Saharan Africa, you find women are the target of mass rapes, with rape being used as a tactic of war."
^^R_Westfield be careful, be careful, be careful now. "Rape" doesn't exist. Don't you know what blog you're visiting?
Seriously though, I agree with your post. And believe me, I am happy to be living in the US versus some of those countries you mentioned. Particularly the ones where women are property.
Burton, as always you've ignored a point blank question and smeared it over with MRM propaganda: "going into mass acts of public emotion (i.e., hysteria), attracting the attention of men." HAVE YOU READ EVE ENSLER'S THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES? No? I didn't think so. And as I said, but apparently you skipped over, I'm not in the slightest bit familiar with "Slutwalks."
"What is being said here? That females will reward men who agree with their political positions by granting access to their vagina?"
^^No. What's being said there is that a man so course, so ignorant, with such a sense of entitlement, and so full of piss is unlikely to find himself in the company of any woman. And p.s. "That hurts. Stop" is not a "political position." Ok???
Here's a list of plays YOU might enjoy. Granted, it's a short list off the top of my head, but I'm in a hurry. These explore various issues of maleness (straight or gay)... boyhood, growing up, sexuality, masculinity, female manipulation and he nice guy syndrome, imprisonment...
The Penis Monologues: Men Speak, by Robert Watts <--(that's right, kiddo;)
I Am My Own Wife, by Doug Wright
Blasted, by Sarah Kane - examines both male and female victimization in equal parts
The Exonerated, by Jensen and Blank - based on true stories, examines both male and female instances of wrongful convictions
Beggars in the House of Plenty, by John Patrick Shanley
The Pillowman, by Martin McDonagh
The Shape of Things, by Neil LaBute
Invisible Boy, by Callen Harty
Goodnight Mister Tom, adapted for the stage by David Wood
"squeezing out the semen afterwards into their vagina" LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
"Many women lie about using birth control, tell men that they need not use a condom, then extort 18 years child support from a man."
Wait second, hold up. You're a "masculinist" (translation: all women are hoes), so what are you doing having sex outside of marriage there Mr Double Standard? Here's an idea. Keep it in your pants and you won't have to worry. Ok ok come back at me now with your best shot. Your best MRM ramblings. Come on, come on, blame it women that you can't keep it in your pants. I double dog dare ya! LOL
Another irrational statement to be tossed in the memory hole:
Wait second, hold up. You're a "masculinist" (translation: all women are hoes), ...
Where have I said that "all women are hoes?" ["hoes?" -- you mean gardening instruments? The plural of "ho" (slang for sex worker) is "hos."]
How do "masculinists" define themselves? And where have I made any statement in accordance with such descriptions? You seem to be quite free in sticking labels on people. Not unlike calling a womyn a "ho."
...so what are you doing having sex outside of marriage there Mr Double Standard?
Since you do not know if I am married, or practice celibacy, or have a harem of sterilized females, or whatever, your statement contains a faulty assumption. Are you making up things out of thin air, like "1-in-4-womyn-is-rayped" or "womyn make only 79 cents on the dollar to men."
Perhaps you are having an active fantasy life here? Imagining getting it on with all those real men masculinists instead of those wussy little male feminists?
In point of fact, I had a friend whose wife told him she was using birth control. She lied. She chose to get pregnant, then initiated a no-fault divorce, had him expelled from his house, then demanded child support and alimony.
If we can have "spousal rape" then we can have "spousal fraud." Womyn who pull these stunts should be seeing the inside of a jail cell.
That would be true equality between the sexes.
Here's something to think about:
If women aren't the "property" of men in their lives (and vice-versa) ...
they become the "property" of government, the banks,
or other women.
How well do you want to bet, they will be treated by these organisations, when their usefulness is outlived?
Burton, I'm hot for you <3
Burton:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=H-O-E
Please don't type at me in such a harsh tone.... it makes me cry and go into uncontrollable female hysterics.
Well Burton, if you truly don't believe that all women are hoes, then let me be the first to inform you that you are definitely visiting the wrong blog because "All Women Are Hoes" is one of the major tenets of MarkyMark's "thoughts" on various issues... ya know, the guy whose position you frequently defend and champion. And well, if you can put words in my mouth and if any disagreement with or challenging of a single thing you say can be carelessly lumped by you into "radfem party line speech," well then, I can lump you in with MarkyMark's moronacy..... one good turn deserves another, isn't that what you said?
xoxo
Burton, as always you've ignored a point blank question and smeared it over with MRM propaganda: "going into mass acts of public emotion (i.e., hysteria), attracting the attention of men." HAVE YOU READ EVE ENSLER'S THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES?
I have a long answer to this one, but need to read some of the other sources you mentioned to make it complete.
Short answer: I've actually attended some of the events to which I refer.
More to follow...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=H-O-E
High ho, high ho, it's off to the urban dictionary we go...
Please don't type at me in such a harsh tone.... it makes me cry and go into uncontrollable female hysterics.
Claim you are engaged in performance art and perhaps you can get a government-corporate-university grant for the hysterics.
Post a Comment