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.
It's always hard to tell, except in hindsight, where nihilism ended and Pollyanna-ism began. Prophets of Doom have always been with us, and usually they are wrong, so 'doom' scenarios don't have a good track record. They do happen, though. I imagine there were guys toward the end of the Roman Empire holding signs that warned of "Dark Ages to Come" if the slide were not arrested.
To me the 'doom' scenario is Western Civilization being overrun and wiped from Earth, as the birth rate declines and finally goes into free fall, as it has done now in Russia and Italy. I don't think that's out of the question; we could be facing a Chinese Russia and an Islamic Western Europe sooner than we think. The last ethnic Germans and French will be living under Islamic Law. That's probably not what they would prefer if asked today, but unless some shock is applied to the system I don't see what can keep it from happening.
There is an economic crack-up scenario on the table that looks a lot like the implosion of the Soviet Union. That could occur if the marriage-divorce thing festers long enough, although it's hard to tell whether that would be good news or bad. Russia's birth rate went into free fall after things started getting better there.
Another "might happen" is the arrival on the scene of a Lech Walesa figure, probably in response to some highly symbolic event such as a Supreme Court decision that was seen by some huge number of men as unambiguously branding government as the enemy of its male citizenry. A general strike by men would absolutely be enough to rip the whole marriage-and-divorce court system out by the roots, even if only 30 or 40 per cent of men participated. Depending on just how symbolic the "symbolic event" was, that number could go up or down. That one might be the best possible outcome.
I don't have a lot of faith in the "squeak by" scenario. I don't know where the propensity of young men to avoid marriage will peak... I doubt it would ever go over 50%. But that's still a big number, and between that and all the other crap going on, we'll see 50 or 60 per cent of the nation's children living apart from their biological fathers. I don't think that's ever been done in human history before, except in cultures where they never got around to installing running water. It might work, but it smells like something that probably won't. I think at least one reasonably-successful culture would have arrived at the 21st century with some alternate-parenting arrangement if any of them worked. But I don't see even one out there that doesn't use two-parent families to raise its young. It's either that or the culture is still living in the bushes.
This just goes to show how powerful feminist ideas are in our society...they've even brainwashed freepers into thinking that men are inherent losers (ie: any organization which has an all-male membership is perverse, criminal, or for losers). We have come to see ourselves the way they preach that we are.
Go back and look at Victorian England. Most of the social life of men in that culture was in men-only organizations (clubs, charitable associations, etc). I was in a fraternity for four years in college and we had a great time...and it was more than just partying.
Straight men are perfectly capable of having oraganizations for themselves that are not dysfunctional.
One of the reasons why I believe that women will lose the gender war that they started is because of one simple fact: women need men more than men need women. The only thing that men really NEED from women is sex. The vast majority of women, on the other hand, have a need not only for sex but for children. And they can't raise children as well by themselves as they can with a man (which is why one of the fundamental problems of all cultures has been how to induce men into giving up their independent lifestyle and take responsibility for a woman and children.)
The average married guy probably spends 75% if his income on his wife and kids. I'd be stinking rich if I was earning my own salary without wifey and the rugrats rifling through my bank account. So why bother, if its just going to give you major problems later on? Why not keep 100% for yourself and just not have a wifey (esp if the gals in your society are easy and can provide easy access to sexual relations)
That is a question that will be running through the minds of more and more straight young men as the feminist revolution rolls onward.
The human condition. If for the sake of arguement this small group is 1%. In order for them to be equal in their minds they need 99% of the power and the other 99% have 1% of the power. This however is foolish since 99 can over come 1 through force. This is exactly how the Soviet Union fell from within. 1% cannot rule 99%, but they will try. All old news. Supremists like Hitler and Islamists like Bin Ladin are among many who have tried to take out Western Civilization, and have failed. So today it's the homosexual lobby, and tomorrow it will be some other fringe group. No matter what label is used to cover it up, it's a lust for power.
Beautiful post. Thanks. Still digesting.
How about on the island of Lesbos?
>>"This just goes to show how powerful feminist ideas are in our society...they've even brainwashed freepers into thinking that men are inherent losers (ie: any organization which has an all-male membership is perverse, criminal, or for losers). We have come to see ourselves the way they preach that we are. "
Didn't mean to come off as one of the self-loathers... I'm the farthest thing from that. I could name only a few positive examples for the "all male" communities you proposed if pressed: Monasteries? Bootcamp? I dunno, you were the one proposing it... can you think of any workable examples? We already have single heterosexual guys sharing apartments... I don't think you meant that.
The point I was trying to make is that if your solution to a society which institutionally hates men is for said men to organize into small self sufficient groups... it is by definition an "anti-civilization" suggestion. The men who do it - voluntarily or not - become superfluous. Since making men superfluous seems to be the main goal of feminism, I missed the point of the suggestion.
That's a given. The deeper issue is that they appear to be taking Judeo-Christian culture - what we have come to know as Western Civilization - with them as they slide toward oblivion.
So when the guy is dating a woman and it get's serious he has to always take her to a hotel/motel? Or her place I suppose. And he always always always wears a condom to make sure no child support is hung around his neck.
Untrue. Men also have a biological imperative and instinct to pass on their genes via having children. Not as much as women but men want children too.
Every now and then a sly commentator will read a piece announcing maybe even analysing one disaster or another and then surprise the audience by saying that was written about Lincoln in 1863 or the kids have gone to hell by Socrates alot earlier than 1863.
The only problem is Lincoln didn't have anthrax, ebola, or sars to attack his enemies and Socrates wasn't the target of smart bombs.
The stakes have been raised winner loses all.
No one doubts there are plenty of women who are linear, rational thinkers. You just don't happen to be one of them.
Just hemlock.
There's another problem: a lot of the stuff that happened really sucked. Smart bombs or not, life as an Athenian contemporary of Socrates was not fun. War, plague, tyranny, and that much more than just the usual.
How do Jews fit in to this picture.
By the way, what would be a non-Jewish rabbi?
I mentioned Gramsci because you asked about Marxism, but there is a lot more to Radical Left than Gramsci. There was Herbert Marcuse's Frankfurt School, whose main contribution was to "identify" the traditional, patriarchal family as a fertile ground for Nazism. In the English-speaking world, Bertrand Russell had quite an impact with his vitriolic attacks against Christianity (I think his hatred of Christianity had a lot to do with the fact that Christianity proscribed promiscuity, which he greatly enjoyed.) Feminism took from these sources, yet it is rather shallow intellectually. It is mostly a set of emotional slogans (think Ta Wee) plus a childlish "gimme! gimme! gimme!" mentality. Although I hate Marxism, I have to admit that Marxism's intellectual depth was orders of magnitude greater than that of feminism.
I think that Feminists' goal is not Communism. What they probably desire is essentially a Sweden with an American Flavor. Because in America there is a tendency to "overdo it" (examples: Salem witch trials, Prohibition, War On Drugs,) Sweden with an American Flavor will likely be more oppressive than Sweden proper. In some ways, it already is, for example, they don't have restraining orders in Sweden and the number of rape convictions in Sweden is one-seventh of ours.
What will happen next?
Legalization of the "gay" marriage may be next, but I think it is not inevitable yet. The Supreme Court justices, in their (uncostitutional) legislative activities so far usually avoided making up grossly unpopular laws. Altough they are unelected, the still do fear, to some extent, the people's wrath. I think it is also telling that the Supreme Court Of Massachusetts has postponed ruling on this issue.
Should this happen, it would have a huge impact on how people relate to the government. Basically, a large portion of the US population would begin to regard it as a government of occupation. A lot of people would start cheating and disobeying the law. I know this from experience - I grew up in Poland, which was under foreign or foreign-imposed governments for most of the last two hundred years and the Poles became the type of people who break the law even if they don't have to.
The War On Dads will eventually result in almost all young men having a male relative whose life was ruined by divorce; eventually the techniques of hiding assets, working in the cash economy, obtaining a second passport will become common knowledge. BTW, none of that is hard - millions of illegal immigrants do it already.
What should be done?
Do not despair. Yes, it looks like the situation is hopeless, but there were many seemingly hopeless situations before. Think of late seventies, when it seemed like the Soviet bloc was winning on all fronts. In 1978 pope John Paul was elected, in 1979 Margaret Thatcher became British Prime Minister, in 1980 Solidarity was created undet Lech Walesa's leadership, and Ronald Reagan was elected President. These people, working together, brought Communism to its knees.
Feminists can be beaten. Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?
Some examples of what can be done:
1. Get paternity fraud referendums on the ballot. In a knee-jerk reaction, feminists will oppose them and they'll lose anyway.
2. Get state legislatures, perhaps even Congress to pass resolutions declaring that "legalization" of "gay" marriage by the Supreme Court would be unconstitutional. Although legally nonbinding, it would send a strong message.
3. Organize a petition to impeach certain Supreme Court justices. Again, merely having several million signatures would send a strong message.
4. An educational effort: make young men aware of risks involved in getting married. The fewer get married, the better.
Same Ten Commandments, same basis for civilization and law.
sakic:By the way, what would be a non-Jewish rabbi?
An imposter.
You are onto something. As I said before, I grew up in Poland; I would say, however, that we need someone who would relate to Americans the way pope John Paul related to the Poles. Pope's 1979 visit (I remebered it as if it happened yesterday) was a psychological breakthrough; without directly criticizing Communists he made them look small and insignificant. Solidarity and Lech Walesa wouldn't have happened without John Paul.
A conservative American bishop becoming elected pope would be very helpful.
"So we see the nuclear physicist deciding to go drive a pizza truck instead."
It doesn't happen exactly that way. I'm a microwave engineer at the point when experience is more valuable to a company than further degrees. I'm 47 and single. I just haven't met a CA babe who isn't spoiled rotten the past 20 or so years. So I date only gals who came from somewhere else and my minimum age requirement is 40. (I will forever kick myself in the butt about when I had the chance to get married in Spain when I was there with the AF) I had a cultural shock after being OS for 6 years. Eventually I turned to internet dating which is quite efficient (be careful, though, LOL). Have had a few affairs and made some fine women friends on a professional basis, but don't want to feel like I'm going to work when coming home! I DO want a gal with ideas beyond herself, though, and it works fine for me. But there are SO many women with kids and divorced husbands still supporting them on those sites. There are 100s of thousands, if not millions. You do get an insight. Do I want to be the live-in boyfriend of a gal who gets a "welfare" check from another guy? NO WAY! I live OK, and know of other straight guys in their 40's, 50's and 60's who do also.
Your reply was about a PhD underperforming. What I have done is find a niche in a company who is happy with me and I with them. Anything over 55, 60K gets the hell taxed out of it and with a limit on what can be put into your 401-K, why bother?
It is more important to be happy than worrying about a declining return on earnings.
I just know I'll have a KickAss good old time whenever I retire!
You will see Somalia here, in your lifetime, because of all the people who want to get laid when they want to.
Hope you like it."
I used to post on FR quite often, and started close to when this site began. I have been busy lately with work and my own relationships with women (which I actually neglected because of other productive pursuits!). We do have a 3rd world type of behavior in L.A. I am selective and want to like a woman's company before going further. I am 47 and the women I date will NOT be below 40. Younger than that they are too irresponsible, crass, or selfish. And they have college degrees which make them think they are princesses, until they meet ME! More men need to learn to put them in their place by being no-BS guys. Their non-present fathers certainly didn't! Once you do it, it makes you feel like a baby-sitter. Thus, my requirements. BTW, the only tight families I know of are of Latino or Oriental origin. The white male has already said "screw-it". At least those with more than 2 brain-cells to rub together.
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.