Posted on 11/26/2017 5:42:39 PM PST by EdnaMode
After weeks of continuously unfolding abuse scandals, men have become, quite literally, unbelievable. What any given man might say about gender politics and how he treats women are separate and unrelated phenomena. Liberal or conservative, feminist or chauvinist, woke or benighted, young or old, found on Fox News or in The New Republic, a man’s stated opinions have next to no relationship to behavior.
Through sheer bulk, the string of revelations about men from Bill Cosby to Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein to Louis C.K. to Al Franken and, this week, to Charlie Rose and John Lasseter, have forced men to confront what they hate to think about most: the nature of men in general. This time the accusations aren’t against some freak geography teacher, some frat running amok in a Southern college town. They’re against men of all different varieties, in different industries, with different sensibilities, bound together, solely, by the grotesquerie of their sexuality.
Men arrive at this moment of reckoning woefully unprepared. Most are shocked by the reality of women’s lived experience. Almost all are uninterested or unwilling to grapple with the problem at the heart of all this: the often ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido.
For most of history, we’ve taken for granted the implicit brutality of male sexuality. In 1976, the radical feminist and pornography opponent Andrea Dworkin said that the only sex between a man and a woman that could be undertaken without violence was sex with a flaccid penis: “I think that men will have to give up their precious erections,” she wrote. In the third century A.D., it is widely believed, the great Catholic theologian Origen, working on roughly the same principle, castrated himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Men bad. Women good.
Bringing up Andrea Dworkin always results in bringing up lunch.
Yesterday's lunch.
This article is ridiculously stupid and small minded. Men are a bit more complex than their sexual desires, and their sexual desires are both necessary and welcome in this world. Both women and men have powerful sexual drives.
Little boys, raised by mothers, are seen from day one as being sweet and kind as well as boisterous and playful. I’ve raised three and none were particularly brutish as children. They knew by kindergarten a) not to push others around to do their whims, and b) why. When boys try bullying and coercing, they should correctly receive the natural punishment of social banning and parental punishments. They learn to enjoy fairness. They play sports, and have a better time when everyone plays by the rules.
Only the truly sociopathic men grow up to rape and abuse women. Men boldly pursuing women, but respecting their wishes and backing off when told, are still good men. Women are powerful creatures too, and their sexual desires drive men in powerful ways too. But within civilization, most sexual interaction between men and women is inoffensive.
How dare this author blame society for a sick creep like Weinstein? Weinstein was a sociopath and those hanging onto him for various reasons were his co-conspirators, acting out of some sort of fear. It wasn’t his raging hormones that made him be cruel and attack innocents, and threaten others. It was his CHOICE to choose evil.
Men shouldn’t be ashamed of being sexual creatures. None of us would be here without them, and women appreciate good, sexually aware, civilized men.
Wow, your comments are right on.
Funny thing: I lived in the dorms for two years. The first year, I was on a woman’s floor. There was a male floor upstairs. Our floor had the coolest girls and theirs had the coolest guys and you know what happened, lots of hookups. The second year, the floors were coed. On our floor, we were all friends. It was like a kibbutz in that way: almost no hookups on our floor between the girls and guys. We even “showered together” (we all wore bathrobes into the individual shower stalls). It was like siblings. We even found the phenomenon interesting at the time.
“Where do they come up with these articles?”
Blue-pilled, pussy hat wearing beta male cuckadoodles.
If Lurch had a sister...
Actually, he is (at least publicly) straight and married:
But seeing as he lives in Sodom East (NYC) and is a liberal journalist, his world view is thoroughly corrupted.
And like all good liberal hacks, he has no problem in painting with a very very broad brush when it comes to the group target for their hate.
The problem with his analysis is that he thinks that the problem is based in male sexuality when it is really the corrupting nature of power being expressed through abusive sexual conduct by certain men towards women and men the abusers feel are vulnerable.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely goes the old saying. But everybody knows that and rather that recognize these scandals are yet another example in a very long line of examples, Mr. Marche has decided that all men everywhere, whether they have this power or not, are to blame and must reform themselves by talking to each other.
That will probably work among his fellow travelers in echo chamber of Manhattan. I’d like to see him try to strike up such a conversation in, say, Waco, Texas or Kingman, Arizona. He might, if he is lucky, get off with just an explicative-laden dressing down.
Since the article is underpinned by claims of the need for equality between the sexes, it is curious to note that there haven’t been any salacious disclosures yet concerning sexually abusive conduct by powerful women. It is hard to believe that the the corrupting nature of this kind of power is limited only to men. Is it that powerful women express its corrupting nature is other ways? Or are the abuses out there but being suppressed through consensus (or intimidation) because it would be distracting from the “all men are evil” narrative being put forward by the anti-patriarchy, anti-white, and LBGT elements of the liberal/left?
So a Hollywood producer is watching a very young starlet's screen test and tells her in confidence... "You're so sweet and innocent looking. I hate to say it, but it REALLY turns me on. Would you have sex with me for a million dollars and a starring role?
The starlet is shocked at his suggestion, but responds that he IS a powerful producer, so she guesses it would be okay to have sex with him for a million dollars and the role.
The producer says "Great! Would you do it for $10?"
"What do you think I am?" said the starlet, indigently?
The producer responds "Oh, we've ESTABLISHED that, my dear. Now we're just negotiating price..."
If it has not bee examined how do they know that it is brutal?
Anything and everything unrestrained has great potential for evil. That is where self control comes in. We are humans, not animals.
From my cold dead hands, hag.
(Wait a minute, that doesn't sound right...)
There, fixed it!
Regards,
Painting a group a people (an entire sex, no less) with the bad actions of a few is prejudice and the the ultimate in sexism.
How dare they!
This article is ridiculously stupid and small minded. Men are a bit more complex than their sexual desires, and their sexual desires are both necessary and welcome in this world. Both women and men have powerful sexual drives.
********************************************
Your lead of your posting deserves to be repeated!
The rest of your posting was great, as well. Well said!
Thanks. That guy is something else!
I’m glad we all get to see the output of people with way too much time on their hands, thanks to the Internet.
Thanks! I’m so sick of male bashing, and blaming human men for Harvey Weinstein is like blaming women for Hillary! Criminals MADE EVIL CHOICES.
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.