Men Behaving Badly - Why?

MND ^ | July 15, 2003 | Karl Glasson, Ph.D.

[Nick Danger]

Many males in western societies seem to be behaving very badly these days.

They seem to be becoming more involved with crime. They seem to be growing more dishonest. They seem to be increasingly hostile and aggressive toward others. They seem less committed to their partners and to their families. They are clearly doing less well in terms of their education. And they seem to be more pre-occupied with their own narrow self-interests than they used to be.

Why is this so?

What can possibly account for this apparent deterioration in the behaviours of western men?

Have their genes suddenly taken a dive for the worse?

Or are they simply responding to the way in which western societies treat them these days?

In my view, the major cause of what seems to be a significant deterioration in the behaviours of men is, quite simply, feminism.

Indeed, the evidence that damns feminism is overwhelming. 

The evidence shows that feminism is not only the primary cultural cause of the current-day bad behaviours of men, it is also the primary cultural cause of very many other current-day serious societal problems.

Before demonstrating to readers how it is that feminism is largely responsible for the current bad behaviours of men, it is important to understand the two following points.

1. Feminism - together with political correctness - has been the most influential ideology in western societies for the past three decades. There are no other ideologies that even come to it in terms of the extent to which it has penetrated western societies. 

Feminism has penetrated very deeply western governments, western laws, western social services, western universities, western colleges, western schools, western media, western families, western bedrooms and western minds.

And it has done so for three decades - a decade longer than even Hitler had - with far fewer resources - in which to stir up his mass hatred toward the Jews.

Feminism has been hugely influential.

And one of its main successes has been the wholesale demonisation of males.

2. Political correctness has been aggressively supported and strongly buttressed by feminists. Indeed, feminists have done their level best to promote any activity which undermines men - particularly white heterosexual ones. 

And political correctness has been a very useful weapon for them in this respect.

But the point here is this. 

Every ill that can be blamed on political correctness, can also be blamed on those who endorse and underpin it. And no group has done more to foist political correctness on to western societies than the feminists.

For three decades, the feminists and the politically correct have engaged in a wholesale onslaught against white heterosexual men.

White men have been persistently accused of being racist by highly vocal racial activists and racial minorities, and their history and their forefathers have been thoroughly undermined and blackened - to the extent that many racial activists are now demanding reparations for past slavery.

Heterosexual men have been continually portrayed as being violent, abusive, oppressors of women by mainstream feminists and a whole plethora of abuse professionals who have a vested interest in portraying men in this way.

Heterosexual men have also been represented by the beautifully orchestrated gay lobby as being bigoted and fearful of their own sexuality.

All men have been assaulted almost ceaselessly by various women's groups, children's groups, social service workers, therapists and analysts who have sought to indoctrinate the population with the view that men are abusers of children.

The ubiquitous feminist-fearing mainstream media have consistently sought to demonise and humiliate the entire male gender - a typical example of which can be seen in the recent vindictive column by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times entitled Incredible Shrinking Y.

And the all-powerful western governments together with the legal profession have almost disempowered men completely when it comes to their families, their relationships and their homes, on the grounds that women and children are often better off without them. (The Federal Bureau of Marriage? by Professor Stephen Baskerville gives a good insight into how this is being achieved.)

In view of all this, is it surprising to find that men are behaving badly?

If A keeps telling B that he considers him to be worthless, and continues to accuse him of things that he has not done, and persistently undermines him in relation to his family and to his children, and continually seeks to portray him as an abuser and an oppressor, who should be surprised if B finally turns his back on A?

Indeed, who should be surprised if B decides to give A a bloody nose?

Well. This is the kind of thing that has been going on in western societies for a long time now thanks to the wholesale demonisation of males by the feminists. 

And many millions of men are - and have been - responding to this by turning their backs on their own societies. 

Indeed, they are not only increasingly refusing to support their own societies, many are, in fact, responding by giving them a bloody nose! - crime, violence etc.

Well. Let us look at some of the reasons why western men might have become this way as a result of feminism (and, indeed, as a result of political correctness).

1. The constant feminist-inspired demonisation and denigration of men throughout the west has resulted not only in many of them feeling worthless, with the result that they now reject the worthwhile values of their own societies (with some turning to crime, drugs, irresponsible behaviours etc) it has also undermined any reason for them to shape up.

You might as well be hung for being a sheep as a lamb!

Furthermore, the ubiquitous negative descriptions of men that continually pour out of the mainstream media simply make many men feel quite entitled to behave in accordance with those very same descriptions!

For example, I once saw a headline in a newspaper complaining about the fact that, "Men do not do housework." 

As a taunt to my partner, I cut out the headline and stuck it on the notice board in the kitchen. But I added the following words underneath it. "Well, if men are not doing any housework, then neither am I!"

The point is that if men are persistently deemed to be slothful - or whatever - then many men, with much justification, will see no reason to behave any differently from the way in which they and their fellow men are being depicted. 

2. The western educational system has been so heavily biased against boys for the past few decades that they are doing very badly at school. Not only have the educationalists been using diabolically poor teaching methods (e.g. in their teaching of reading skills) but the curricula have been so feminised and politically corrected that boys quickly lose any interest that they might have had in being 'educated'. 

This, coupled with poor standards of discipline, has led to our societies having to bear the burden of having millions of undisciplined, uneducated males in their midsts.

3. The effect of feminism and political correctness in education - e.g. in the study of History - and in the mainstream media, where 'great white men of noble character' are hardly seen to exist any more means that there are few good role models for boys in their growing years. And the images of men that are daily inflicted upon young men and boys are overwhelmingly negative.

Is it surprising, therefore, that so many men actually have no real concept of what a 'good man' is?

Such men do not exist in the world that is being presented to them.

4. Thanks to the wholesale corruption of the family courts and the "no-fault" divorce laws, men no longer have any real motivation to devote most of their lives, their love, their money etc into bringing up a family. Why should they - when it can all be taken away from them at the whim of their partners?

Furthermore, prejudicial 'relationship laws' - such as those pertaining to domestic violence and child abuse etc - make men feel very insecure within their relationships.

And to add to all this there is the daily carpeting of man-hatred that pours out of the feminist-dominated media telling women and children to report their partners for abuse of some sort. 

Well. There are only two main ways in which men can deal with the relationship insecurity that all this brings about.

Firstly, they can stop caring very much about their relationships so that they are not too hurt when they eventually break down. 

Secondly, they can refrain completely from committing themselves to, or from investing in, any long-term serious ones.

And, indeed, this is exactly what the research shows western men to be doing.

5. The welfare system hotly promoted and buttressed both by the feminists and the politically correct supports single motherhood. And the same is true for the laws concerning child-support payments and alimony. 

These not only make fathers and husbands redundant, they also encourage their very own women and children to see them in exactly this way.

Men are, therefore, easily rejected, and they are often also treated with contempt.

They are, after all, redundant.

And another word for 'redundant' is, of course, 'worthless'.

6. Family and marital breakdown are the major cause of misbehaviour and poor socialisation in males. Indeed, those who are brought up without their fathers at home are far more likely ... 

... to live in poverty and deprivation

... to be trouble in school 
... to have more trouble getting along with others 
... to have health problems 
... to suffer physical, emotional, or sexual abuse 
... to run away from home 
... to experience problems with sexual health 

... to become teenage parents 
... to offend against the law
... to smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs 
... to play truant from school 
... to be excluded from school 
... to leave school at 16 

... to have adjustments to adulthood problems
... to attain little in the way of qualifications 
... to experience unemployment
... to have low incomes 
... to be on welfare
... to experience homelessness 

... to go to jail 
... to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems  
... to engage only in casual relationships
... to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership

But feminists have always done their best to break up traditional families and to exclude fathers from them, because they believe that traditional families are oppressive to women.

And this particularly huge catalogue of societal ills that has arisen directly from their assault on marriage and family was successfully repressed by the mainstream feminist-fearing media for two decades.

7. The encouragement of immigration - legal and illegal - by the left-wing politically correct (supported heavily by feminists) has led to a breaking down of the main culture and to a large increase in the size of the criminal underclass. This, together with all the factors mentioned previously, has led to millions of young men engaging in crime or in being closely associated with others who engage in it. 

In the UK, one-third of all men have a criminal conviction. In the USA, some 2 million men are in prison and another 4 million are somehow currently involved with the criminal justice system.

8. As Lew Rockwell readers will know only too well, taxes are far too high as a consequence of the ever-burgeoning government and its ever-increasing activities. 

Well. It is women - and feminists in particular - and other 'minorities' - through their politically-corrected activists - who are the main supporters of big government and heavy taxation.

And the result of heavy taxation is that people are less motivated when it comes to working for a living and, for many men, it makes crime and sloth an even more attractive option.

Well, I could go on and make many more connections between feminism and the poor behaviours of men.

But do I really need to?

If you glance again at the 8 points above you will see that they allude to huge negative influences that impact, in some way or other, upon all males. And they each affect all males very badly indeed.

Furthermore, every single one of these huge negative influences directly arises from ideas and policies promoted and buttressed by feminists.

Indeed, feminism is the main cause of the most pressing problems facing western societies.

None of the above is to suggest that genes do not play a part in the bad behaviours of men. They surely do - just as much as they do with regard to the bad behaviours of women. And neither is it necessary to make any claims about whether children are 'born good' - and are corrupted by society - or 'born bad' - and need to be disciplined and socialised.

The point is that we do know that the way in which societies are constructed, the values that they hold, and the methods through which their aims are sought, have a great bearing on the way in which the people within them behave - e.g. just look at the effects of fatherlessness listed above.

And when an ideology has been hugely pervasive, influential and dominant for three whole decades it should not be allowed to escape from being seen as significantly responsible for the social consequences that are very clearly associated with it.

Furthermore, if western men continue to be persistently attacked, accused, vilified, undermined and demonised, disempowered within their families and discriminated against through the justice system, their behaviours are likely to grow considerably worse!

And if feminists continue to pursue their aims without regard to the way in which they are alienating millions of men, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future both they and their supporters (e.g. in the media, in academia and in government) are going to be in for a very nasty shock.

Finally, given that feminists have ruthlessly pursued their aims without regard to the well-being of men, why should men not now do the very same?

For example, why should men strive particularly hard to support their families given that some 50% of them will eventually lose them; and much else besides - with a further significant percentage remaining in unhappy marriages because they have no realistic alternatives? Why should they labour to set themselves up for so much serious hurt?

Why should men work for long hours? - particularly if they have onerous jobs and given that the state will take much of their earnings in taxes. 

Why should men with limited resources bother to save any money when their governments will tax it and subject it to significant devaluation?

Why should men commit themselves to one particular woman when so many are now available for fun and frolics?

Why should men not seek hours of pleasure from superficial pursuits - such as those deriving from their various gadgets, toys, sports and videogames? Do not women spend many of their hours gawping at celebrities and soap operas, and thinking about fashion, cosmetics and romantic fantasies?

And what, exactly, are men supposed to be aiming for?

Why should men not be aggressive or offensive toward women given that women are nowadays aggressive and offensive toward them?

Indeed, why should men pursue 'nobler' aims when these are persistently undermined by feminists and their governments?

The bad behaviours of men mostly reflect the fact that western men are now following more their own desires and their own predilections. And they are caring less about how this may affect others.

In other words, they are doing exactly what the feminist handbooks and many women's magazines have been urging women to do for years.

[Cogadh na Sith]

It's a shame that a really fascinating discussion has deteriorated into a food fight because some can't keep their emotions out of it.

I know I can't....

My ex blackmailed me for years by threatening to call the cops on me for false domestic violence... For that priviledge, I'm now allowed to pay the debts she ran up in my name that I didn't know about, and give her half of everything I managed to save (she didn't work).

There are three partners to any marriage, the man, the woman, and the state. The state is a system designed to punish a man for supposed transgressions of previous men and give rewards and succor to women in order to gain more dependents and power.

I, for one, won't play anymore. A woman who insists on a state-sanctioned marriage is in effect saying: "I love you now, but if I meet someone more fun, I want the kids and half of everything you worked for."

It's so screwed-up now, that the only way I would know that a woman actually loves me is if she doesn't insist on a legal union.

[Windsong]

Someone must have REALLY hurt you awhile back. :(

[Ta Wee]

"It is interesting that centuries of being chattel, of being considered less than human did not drive western women to crime, violence, and mayhem."
I'd say baby killing is criminal, violent and tends toward mayhem.

Before indulging in such sanctimonious tones, you should do some research on infanticide and child abandonment in all manner of cultures, and the motivations behind such.

I suppose you are going to say that the man never lived who did not want his children.

[Tall_Texan]

The state is the one who gives the marriage legal standing. Because of this, they feel they have the right to intervene. I'm not saying I approve of that - it's just how it is.

While some would say that maybe, then, the state should keep out of marriage, this would actually invite same-sex couples and others to cheapen the institution even further than it has already become. So the state must stay involved although I'd prefer they kept a healthy distance.

As for your unfortunate situation, stories like yours are part of the reason I'm a lifelong batchelor (and, consequently, a lifelong celibate). I'd really love to find a girl and settle into a longterm wonderful bliss-filled marriage. Some seem to find it and I am both happy for them and jealous of them. But the risks are, frankly, much greater than the perceived rewards. I've met many divorced men in your shoes. I don't envy them, even in the least.

[=Intervention=]

That was NOT the point in any way, shape, or fashion -- you must be insane.

[Ta Wee]

=>That was NOT the point in any way, shape, or fashion -- you must be insane.

Men who only find other men fit company should have their own planet, and leave the rest of humanity in peace.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[A.J.Armitage]

Why, if you don't like it, you must be unmanly. A REAL man would go and say, "Please, ma'ams, may I have another?"

[SauronOfMordor]

That was NOT the point in any way, shape, or fashion -- you must be insane.

She's not insane, just an extremely bitter divorced woman whose husband seems to have turned gay left her for another man, and managed to not give her any assets or alimony. For example, check out some of her posts on Young men are running from marriage:

MY cats are better company than men. I don't have to stop and explain what I'm talking about to them constantly, or define my vocabulary. The last guy I dated was an engineer, and it was like running school constantly, explaining to this guy what words meant, what history something referred to...that the words enumerate and remunerate DO NOT mean the same thing.

137 posted on 07/02/2003 11:40 AM EDT by Ta Wee

------

Well, MY ex ran up about 11k in debt. I took his deck of credit cards away from him, turned the thermostat to 50, and lived like a peasant until the debt was paid. THEN I left. And I never saw a nickel from him, even though he was busy taking vacations with his boyfriend, and I was sleeping on the floor of my basement apartment.

But of course, those awful women always get EVERYTHING, don't they?

258 posted on 07/02/2003 2:09 PM EDT by Ta Wee

------

She seems to have had enough of men in general, and her ex seems to have had enough of women in general

[Cogadh na Sith]

My pal has a word for the phenomenon of cats leaving chicks for other cats:

"Advancing Towards the Rear"

It was all summed up by a sign I saw at a fast food joint in my town:

YOUR CHOICE:

CHIX QUESADILLA
OR
BROWNIE DELIGHT

.99!!

[SauronOfMordor]

My eldest daughter has a friend who's father left, had a sex-change, and is now a practicing lesbian. He/she/it likes girls, but wants to be a woman. Go figure. The friend refers to me as "adoptive dad".

[Nowhere Man]

Nick, again I think you're one of the smartest here. I still believe in fighting for what's right, I guess many times I feel like Eddie Willers. B-) Still the way things are going, I can weep for my country and society. I see a lot of times where many men and women shirk their responsibilities due to the PCness of our society. I see it personally too.

Still, I hope someday I find a nice repsosible lady who shares good, old-fashioned, American values to settle down with and raise kids, but it seems like there are not that many out there, perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places too. Still, Nick, you have a lot of good points and takes on situations, it really makes me think.

[=Intervention=]

Ah, I understand. Hatred and stark raving madness can be difficult to distinguish at a distance...:)

[johnb838]

Heres an example: If they keep demonizing cops for using sufficient force to protect themselves when making an arrest, they ain't gonna make the arrests. And good men won't want to be cops.

Like Homer once said "If you hate your work, don't quit. Just go in anyway and do a really half-assed job. It's the American way."

[SauronOfMordor]

Heres an example: If they keep demonizing cops for using sufficient force to protect themselves when making an arrest, they ain't gonna make the arrests. And good men won't want to be cops.

During the LA Riots following the Rodney King verdict, the cops realized that the only way to stop the riots would be to open fire on the rioters. They also knew that if they did, they would be crucified. So they left and let the riot happen without them

[Nick Danger]

Most women are not so stupid as to find this alluring, attractive, or any indication of a man behind the words.

I appreciate the advice. You need to understand that I'm new at this. In my day there was no such thing as trying to find dates on the Internet. We didn't even have the Internet. I had to learn to get my way with the wenches using charm, wit, and my good looks. But that all seems so... Twentieth Century now.

There are several women around this forum who know me personally from various Freep events around the country. They will tell you that I am not only charming and witty, I genuinely like women... and for all the right reasons. In fact they'll tell you that if I wasn't such a pot-bellied old fart, they'd think I was pretty cool. But I wasn't always a pot-bellied old fart. There was a time when, if I hit the 19th Street bars on Friday night and came home empty, it was because of a mistake.

If by 9:30 I already know that this woman has a cat, and that her father was a Marine drill sergeant who always wanted a boy, it's nobody's fault but mine if I'm still sitting there talking to her at 11. Sometimes we men get distracted, and forget we're on a mission.

But you're right, this Internet thing throws me. Especially after that Classy Blue-eyed Redhead turned out to be a 300-pound sex offender named Bruno. Say what you want about singles bars, you can spot the 300-pound sex offenders (and the 300-pound single women) from 100 yards away, and go for the blonde goddess instead. At least that was the plan I always followed.

So you don't think the civilization is at risk from all these feminist-inspired legal triumphs, eh? I do. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when, as is happening more frequently now, I see young men coming into these threads saying, "Yep. That's exactly how it is. No frigging way am I getting married. Not these days."

I was ranting about this eight or ten years ago. At that time, nobody believed it, and nobody wanted to hear it. To me it's simple economics. Raise the price of marriage to men, and fewer men will want it. Raise it some more, and then some more, and then some more, and you will see a "social phenomenon" of young men avoiding marriage like the plague. And I was condemned as a nut for saying this.

Well, here we are, years later, with the women's rags full of "Why won't men commit?" articles, and ever-larger numbers of young men obviously refusing to play "Human Society". And of course these young men are condemned as irresponsible and immature and so on. But they are doing exactly what any economist would expect the hypothetical "rational man" to do when presented with a transaction that is horribly skewed against them. They choose not to enter into the transaction.

So do I feel like the Great Karnak for seeing this coming? No. I'm saddened to see it come true. Because it means my civilization is going to fall over. For a lot of reasons, this system will not change, except to become even more onerous towards men. It is a vicious circle, and the one thing I am certain it will not end in is a nation of stable, two-parent families raising children.

I look around the world, and I don't see any serious civilization that has not adopted lifelong pair-bonding with two-parent families raising children as their basic social unit. The Indians, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Japanese, the Persians, the Western Europeans... all these hugely different cultures with different traditions and different religious beliefs... all adopted the same basic structure for raising their young. Can we find other systems in the world? Sure. But this tribe lives in the bushes, that one herds camels in the desert... these are the people who never made it out of the grass hut stage of development.

Nowhere on this Earth is there an example of a successful culture with serious accomplishments where children are raised by women, while men send them money in the mail. If it's ever been tried before, those people are gone now. They're extinct. Then I look the fertility rates in Western countries. They're below the replacement rate, in many cases by a lot. So we're becoming extinct. And I post rants about this.

And to you this sounds like I hate women. Instead of futzing up this thread with your personal injuries, and individual examples of 'he done her wrong,' how about lifting your sights a bit... above youself, above what happened to your friend Suzie, and look at the big picture for a change. Your culture is going out of business. Do you care?

[Nowhere Man]

The state is the one who gives the marriage legal standing. Because of this, they feel they have the right to intervene. I'm not saying I approve of that - it's just how it is.

While some would say that maybe, then, the state should keep out of marriage, this would actually invite same-sex couples and others to cheapen the institution even further than it has already become. So the state must stay involved although I'd prefer they kept a healthy distance.

As for your unfortunate situation, stories like yours are part of the reason I'm a lifelong batchelor (and, consequently, a lifelong celibate). I'd really love to find a girl and settle into a longterm wonderful bliss-filled marriage. Some seem to find it and I am both happy for them and jealous of them. But the risks are, frankly, much greater than the perceived rewards. I've met many divorced men in your shoes. I don't envy them, even in the least.

You know what, dude, you hit the nail on the head as well, I feel the same way you do sometimes. Of course, I'm trying to get my career and financial life together even before I can entertain the notion of settling down with the love of my life and having kids. I'm 37 and there are times when I lay awake at night and wonder, "is there anyone out there for me?" Still, it isn't a thing to rush, I've seen the consequences of that. I pretty much pray at night asking God to guide me in that regard.

I knowl ike you, there are times I feel jealous and happy when I see some of my friends and people my age together having a family. I'm 37. I really didn't feel one way or naother towards it until I was almost 34 in 2000. I went to a military airshow where I knew the C-17 pilot from when he was a kid. I remember giving him an F-15 flight simulator when he was little for the Apple, hopefully that helped push him int an Air Force career. Anyhoo, while I was waiting for him to fire up the C-17 for a demonstration, I saw a little red haired girl and her younger brother in the grass between the tarmac just playing. She must have been about 3 or 4, her brother maybe a year or so younger. I said to myself, "I wish I had that, a wife and kids."

Well, one of my co-workers at one place I worked at, he got married at 47 and had his first baby while pushing 50, so maybe there is hope for me. B-)

[disclaimer]

I do respect God. He is first in my life, but the churches in my area just stink--so I'm kind of on my own with that one... The Protestant ones are unbelievably liberal and I'm not Catholic, though my ex was--I used to go to Mass with her (when she used to go, before she got into New Age crap and Tarot reading) and the girls were dressed like 'hoochie-mamas'. I mean it was pretty cool, T & A and lots of exposed flesh, but not really what I would go to church for....

You sound like me when it comes to the church - my wife and I are Catholics. Of the five or so churches in my area, two are traditional enough that I can respect them, although we get the occasional organist that substitutes 'people' for 'mankind' in the hymns To me, that's an expression of hatred not inclusive language since 'mankind' never meant 'male-kind' by definition. Regardless, the churches have been feminized to some degree and have all kinds of flaws, but I reasoned that in countries where the church is outlawed, or in the days when the church was just becoming established in Rome, those who believe were for the most part on their own. So, I scouted out a parish where they have their act together and I do what I can to improve it. There are still those women that show up looking like they're going to a night club though.

I'm sorry to hear about your ex-wife, she reminds me of a lady I dated for awhile. She followed the god of new-age feminism more than the church as she chose to focus on the criticism of the faith instead of researching her faith for herself to understand it. There is nothing more important in life. If you'd like to read about this subject, a book I'd suggest is A Twist of Faith - How feminist spirituality is changing the church and betraying the women it promised to heal

I don't believe that [Women want the security to know that the man they marry will be there with them and the children for their entire life] is true anymore. It may have never been true. I believe that we do not, and cannot, know what women want because they don't know what they want. They only wanted 'security' and a 'life-time mate' because they suffered badly if they didn't.

I agree that most women don't know what they want. We've all been fed the idea that life is all about entertaining ourselves or seeking fame and fortune but nothing is said about family. Funny though, our most cherished memories is of our family. Big news items these days are that women are finding themselves too old to have children and a family - what they really wanted after all. I didn't try to figure out what women want, I knew what I wanted in a woman and I expressed it. It's tough today to find a woman who first of all, wants to be a woman and wants a family - but they are out there. That was my approach and I met my wife at Ballys (health club /gym) of all places.

No, they will use it [then women will try to use the state to obtain security] to get money, fun, power and to avoid responsibility

Feminists have organized the biggest 'union' ever and have power - power corrupts.

[Nowhere Man]

I believe that back in Victorian times, middle-class gentlemen were more likely to marry at around or after 30, to women in their early twenties. Marriage was deferred until the man could support a wife, which meant that men married well-into their careers

That is so true. I'm into the Victorian/Edwardian era historically and for the most part men past the age of 25 to maybe in the mid 30's and even a little beyond usually went to social events like dances and the like. Usually the women there were like 17, 18 to the early 20's and that's how some people found each other in order to court and hopefully marry.

I've heard from various Biblical scholars that Joseph was around 30 or so and Mary was 15 to about 18 when she married Joseph and had Jesus so there is precident where the man concentrated on his career and taking care of many issues before taking a wife.

I guess deep down inside I think I found a good term to describe me politically and socially, "neo-Victorian." B-)

[jejones]

63%? How did they determine that, I wonder?