|
Posted on 07/15/2003 1:45:35 PM PDT by 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.
|
|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Oh I dunno, perhaps recent public role models:
FMCDH
Like California? I think so. Men are begging to shrug off the yoke of feminist politics practiced by the "feminist" politicians in the state.
An example: A few days ago, Gray Davis defended his governorship by accusing one of his opponents, Bill Simon as:"Being against gun control, offshore drilling and pro-choice". In general, these three issues are more compelling to women than men. In other words, Davis was saying he was the candidate of the females of California and if you throw me out the men will be in charge.
Perhaps it is time women began to rethink their responsibilities to the Republic under the Nineteenth Amendment.
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 the woman in question : then GO GET A JOB.
| Like California?
|
He SEEMS to want to make a point but SEEMS too lazy to do his homework!
This is why Islam must be infected with "Modernity" as soon and as thoroughly as possible, since the job will only get more difficult with time. Good troops will get harder to find with each passing generation. (Nowadays the draft is not wanted by military brass because the moral quality of non-volunteers is so low. This will get worse.)
I used to think, as you do, that this process would work itself out more quickly than it has. In fact, licentiousness progresses with a sort of majestic, slow, relentless, almost geological inevitability. Like geology, where most terrain features are caused by sudden flooding, volcanism, or similar catastrophe, the social terrain will suddenly, unpredictably, and violently change, but the process is a long one.
What?! Does this guy mean that we have to actually investigate things, to examine what is going on and, gasp, apply old-fashioned values and actually have to assign responsibility for bad things going on in our society to Feminism, dear Feminism?! Gaia forbid!! (/dripping sarcasm from yet another pig)
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.
A history teacher of mine told our class once that the easiest way for a ruler or ruling class to cause their own demise was to force their subjects to lose hope - because, lacking hope, the victims will also have nothing to lose by fighting back in some way. That resistance usually rises to the level of violence, because destroying a man's hope is not a light matter. He used the example of taking or destroying a man's house as the best way to do this. However, Feminist politics and our legal system has greatly exceeded that "modest" punishment. Let's take the example of a man who simply cannot stand his wife, or whose wife cannot stand him - so they get a divorce. Not only is the husband/father kicked out of the house he paid and worked for over the course of many years, but he has to pay alimony to the person who did it to him, and child support for the children that she took from him. Oh, and all the while, she could be shacked up with some other guy (or many over the course of several years) - in our victim's very house - but as long as she doesn't get married, he keeps paying alimony. And he dare not refuse to pay - his credit will be ruined, he may lose his job and possibly even go to jail. Oh, and if he's a gun owner, be assured that the restraining order that her attorney insists upon will take his guns and prevent him from buying any more. In short, he loses everything dear to him, and is forced to work as not much more than an indentured servant. Gee, I don't see much hope there - no wonder that behavior is growing worse over time, and no wonder that lots of people (mostly men) see little use for our present form of government or those who are in charge.
As a class, men have the power to bring down the infrastructure simply by ignoring it, as was done in the Soviet Union. We are much closer to that than I thought we would be by now. There's less anger in it than I thought there might be. It's more at "who cares?" It's nothing organized, it's just a million little decisions not to give a damn anymore. It's a very corrosive phenomenon.
The pot is boiling - putting the lid on the pot and turning up the gas will only hasten the inevitable explosion.
I seem to remember this from a pysch class long ago. Isn't that the experiment where male rats living in crowded conditions became violent and homosexual ? and the females began killing and eating the young ?
Yes. Pacific Gas and Electric used to have a policy that built new plants when ever usage reached a point where full use was predictable. The greens argued that this policy led to growth, because power was always plentiful and power was one of the things needed for growth.
This conflict was finally resolved in the greens favor by the overwhelming nature of leftist California politics. PGE leadership took their ball and went home, arranging with the legislature for sale of the power plants and clearance of their debt in return for the partial privatization that California adopted.
The Daddy did indeed leave the state to its fate, and it came sooner then expected but the result may be an off year change in government. I don't believe it will lead to total chaos, but some may be so inclined.
Seven years ago I thought we were about fifteen years away from government losing the consent of enough of its male governed that it would be pushed into falling. That still seems about right to me.
I think you're wrong. Name one instance of this phenomenon.
As a class, men have the power to bring down the infrastructure simply by ignoring it, as was done in the Soviet Union. We are much closer to that than I thought we would be by now.
Hahahahahahahah! An organized movement by the working class to bring down society? Hahahahahahahah!
It's a very corrosive phenomenon. As the Soviet Union experience showed, everything can look almost normal right up to the end... and then all of a sudden, a cascade of infrastructure failures stops everything in its tracks.
I could be wrong, but I thought the Soviet Union collapsed in a macro way, not a micro way.
True, pc bs and feminazis have had their day, but you can't change dna. Guys are still guys (although we may not harass the new fox at work (which is a good thing)).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
This piece reminded of a set of rants I did on Usenet six or seven years ago, particularly the "Pygmalion" effects and the "Atlas gonna shrug one of these days" aspects. The author also glances at, but doesn't see — or choose to talk about — the potentially interesting consequences of government becoming seen as "something that needs to go away" by its male citizens. Seven years ago I thought we were about fifteen years away from government losing the consent of enough of its male governed that it would be pushed into falling. That still seems about right to me. As a class, men have the power to bring down the infrastructure simply by ignoring it, as was done in the Soviet Union. We are much closer to that than I thought we would be by now. There's less anger in it than I thought there might be. It's more at "who cares?" It's nothing organized, it's just a million little decisions not to give a damn anymore. It's a very corrosive phenomenon. As the Soviet Union experience showed, everything can look almost normal right up to the end... and then all of a sudden, a cascade of infrastructure failures stops everything in its tracks.