With all due respect, you seem to have your own issues going in the other direction. Your posts make it quite apparent that you are projecting your own bias.
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.
Looking at it from a practical standpoint, historically the man was not a viable husband until he had enough income and assets to support a wife, which generally happened after age 25. Conversely, families had an incentive to get the girls married off early after puberty, so as to not have to worry about teen pregnancy (or to deal with teen pregnancy after the fact!)
I've read Nick's postings on this thread, and he's never accused you of advocating matriarchy, saying society is in good shape, or whining about what happened to yourself or friends, as far as I could notice. I, on the other hand, have noted (see post 109, this thread) where on other threads you've gone on about things that have happened to you.
All Nick is going on about is that this current society's tendency for marriages not lasting, kids growing up without day to day contact with their fathers, and lots of men seeing their stuff go away in the aftermath of divorce, does not make for a healthy society.
Just because people disagree with you, does not automaticly mean they "hate women". This dialogue is like dialogues with some African-Americans, where the cry of "You're a RACIST" is the standard line when the other party doesn't have a reasoned response to an argument undercutting his ideological position. It is an attempt to shut down discussion and divert it into name calling.
No... In that case, the woman finds herself talking to the spot in the room where the man used to be... and won't ever be again.
It's a curious fact of life: a man can almost always find a woman willing to put up with him. And if he can find one, he can find another.
I don't mean to say that's a good thing; it's just an observation.
Relationships involve a lot of give and take. Ideally, each partner should put up with some amount of annoying behavior (as long as it's compensated by a greater amount of pleasing behavior), and strive to minimize their own annoying behavior. Where such can be achieved, you have a working relationship
Nobody can be perfect at all times, and someone who demands perfection at all times will be alone most of the time
The facts of life are that almost-perfect people are in high demand, and will be able to select an almost-perfect mate from a wide pool, while very-imperfect people have a tiny pool of people willing to put up with them, and have their choices limited to settling for whoever will put up with them, or being content with solitude
Well, that's one perspective on it... and the ruling elites prefer their subjects to have immature traits. It's one of the hallmarks of domestication.
On the other hand, a man should not expect to be taken for granted, and many simply will not.
When a similar thing happened to me, I stated "But as a man, I feel the need to hold the door for lady. Obviously, I mistakenly confused you for being one."
With all due respect, you seem to have your own issues going in the other direction. Your posts make it quite apparent that you are projecting your own bias.
| Find yourself a perfect partner: another man.
Christina Hoff Sommers tells the story of how the "Superbowl Sunday" myth got started. A bunch of self-appointed Professional Feminists staged a press conference where they totally misrepresented a paper written by some professor, and sold the media a bill of goods about how millions of women would be beaten up during or after the upcoming Superbowl game. Only one reporter bothered to chase down the original research paper and noticed that it said no such thing. All the rest of them bought it hook, line, and sinker. So here are millions of men watching a football game, and on comes a public service advertisement warning them not to get violent with the womenfolk. If the urge to punch or kick the wife became too great, they should turn off the game. What the Hell was that about? We've all seen these articles; the media is full of them. Men are brutes... genetic defectives. Keep them away from the children. |
Not all that far-fetched. I know a number of women who are "AC/DC", some preferring women but occasionally going with guys, others primarily hetero but occasionally going the other way. From my experiences, I think there are more AC/DC girls than pure lesbians. In such a case, if the pure lesbians can poison the environment between men and women, they're more likely to have the AC/DC's to themselves. It's also an incentive for gay men going after AC/DC guys
It has to do with a branch of Marxism - the work of Gramsci (who influenced the generation of 1968.) Basically, Gramsci advocated attacking the traditional culture instead of Lenin-style armed takeover. Gramsci's goal was the same as Lenin's - a Communist state. Today's radical liberals continue the work of Gramsci except that destroying traditional culture, which used to be means, became goal.
Or is it, as 'longtermmemmory' suggests in #67, something more sinister... a truly outrageous and sick scheme by seriously disturbed lesbian wackos to rid the Earth of male humans, presumably so they can have all the girls to themselves? That would sound nuts if they weren't actually working diligently to make it happen.
I would like to offer some hope. Despite all the feminist howling, women need men more than men need women. Why? Because for men physical needs (the sexual drive) are more important than emotional needs. For women, emotional needs are more important than the physical ones. Thus, mens' needs can be satisfied in many ways (e.g through one night stands, prostitution etc.) whereas women's panic about men being "unwilling to commit" is very real.
So how would you predict the next 50 years.? Europe is probably about 10 years more decayed than us, dont you think? Sweden has pretty much de-institutionalized marriage,with others close behind, and the welfare state's imminent rocking point has garnered the full attention of the elites in Europe; that is, the crisis in pensions and demographic imbalance. They (the elites) have decided to import their future generations, but unfortunately they picked Muslim Countries to import from, so now theyre screwed on two fronts. A nasty metamorphisis is forthcoming coming, soon enough, isnt it?.
And what about us? Immigrants are fueling whatever pop. growth we have, and the demographics are somewhat different here. But IMO theres no stopping the coming debacle; a Republican govt ( all 3 branches) certainly seems impotent, and there no stopping the media's onslaught of PC propaganda.
So it will be interesting, if you look at it from a distance. But whats the end game?
But no solution consisting of turning back the "clock" (i.e getting rid of no fault divorce, dismantling the "social security" net of direct wealth transfer from young to old and men to women, etc) is on the horizon, given the opposing distribution of power amongst academia, media, govt beauracracy, etc. IMO they will tinker around the edges and never get to the root of the problem. And then things will get really, really bad . IMO.
Men have emotional needs too. We need friendship and intellectual companionship, besides sex. But guys can satisfy their companionship needs with their male buddies
You are correct that a guy can have enjoyable sex with a woman that he is not emotionally connected to (else prostitution would not be the worlds oldest profession), so one option available to high-status men who have had all the kids they're interested in having, is to get a vasectomy and then have a succession of girlfriends (keeping no individual one around long enough to qualify for "palimony")
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.
Which brings us to another major theme in the article, the demonization of men. If it was just you doing this stuff I suppose we could write it off to some percentage of individual women having "issues," but alas, it isn't just you.