Men Behaving Badly - Why?

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

[SauronOfMordor]

They screamed that I was sexually harrassing them. So I slammed the door on them.

Was this near a college with a militant "womyns studies" dept?

[Nick Danger]

Today's radical liberals continue the work of Gramsci except that destroying traditional culture, which used to be means, became goal.

I have that sense too... that when the Soviet Union fell, leftist radicals sort of lost their purpose. But they keep on going through the motions because they don't know what else to do.

I don't think, though, that leftist radicals were ever this good. We've had leftists around forever, and while they have certainly pushed America leftward, they have not turned the entire culture upside-down.

OK, maybe the Gramsci process is a catastrophic one, i.e. instead of long, slow progress, it appears to be doing nothing for a very long time. And then -wham- all this stuff changes rapidly. Perhaps. And maybe this whole business of fuzzing up gender roles and identities is simply a Gramscian tactic in pursuit of social collapse, with the Marxists assuming there will be Marxism on the other side.

I have viewed feminism the same way for a long time. One explanation for the kind of 'organized feminism' we've seen over the last 30 years is that some female Marxists hit upon a way to sell class struggle in the United States. Labor vs management was never a very good "class struggle" wrench for American communists, but men vs women lit up the boards. Marxists had finally identified the oppressor class, and the oppressed class, and we could have Marxist class struggle all day long, with glorious statism to the rescue.

I'll say this: it worked a lot better than the old Gus Hall recipe for selling communism.

What if they aren't Marxists. Or rather, what if feminism isn't so much Marxist radicals using 'men vs women class struggle' to push toward Marxism as it is homosexual females using statism more as tool to enact a totally different agenda that is only "Marxist" to the extent it is convenient, and the need for an all-powerful state appears in both Marxist and feminist agendas?

The Steyn column I linked above has me thinking. How does a relative handful of homosexual males and females jerk this entire culture around the way they are doing? We are witnessing a skill set here that is truly amazing. Fewer than a thousand lesbian activists started what is now an unstoppable vicious circle that is destroying the ability of the culture to even form families and raise children, to the point that we are literally going out of business. Whatever agenda they had in mind is probably off the table, because what they started is out of control now. It's going to run its course, and where it ends no one knows.

But look at this: now the same huge majority of people who sat idly by while a bunch of very determined lesbians torqued the legal system into turning marriage into something so onerous for men that huge numbers of young men will now not go near it... those same people are standing around watching in amazement as homosexual men take over youth organizations and bring the same wrath-of-government crap down on their enemies that the lesbians did twenty years ago. This is not Marxism at all. It is homosexuals jerking the entire culture around to promote their own sexuality. It's not even politics; it's absolutely base-level crap. The statism is only there because a huge, intrusive state is one of two necessary conditions needed to pull this off.

The other is Big Media... a huge network of bullhorns and outdoor speakers through which to pump a stream of extremely cleverly-manipulated symbols into the culture.

I haven't really thought this through, so there could be all kinds of holes in it. But it is very clear that we are watching people at work here whose skill at symbol manipulation is waaaaayy higher than average. These are the best propagandists the world has ever seen. They are jerking around a huge culture in which they are perhaps 5 to 10% of the population, if that, and they are jerking it around in ways that unhook millenia-old traditions and taboos. That is absolutely amazing.

Is this really Marxism? I don't think so. Is it Gramscian? Technique-wise perhaps, but is its goal a Marxist state? A totalitarian state, to be sure. But that's only because they're a tiny minority, and without a strong government with which to cram their agenda down everyone's throat, they couldn't do it. Maybe it's all about sex.

[Torie]

Have you noticed that the equal worth pay issue has died? Maybe the Lesbians are less influential than you think. I grant you that stupid economic postulations have a shorter half live than more subjective social ones do. When voters think that their kids might well go gay due to external influences, your point of view might gain political traction. But most parents don't really believe that their kids are are at risk, because they "know" their kids. Thus, you have a problem from a political point of view.

[BobS]

I agree with all you have said. Notice, though, all the women on internet dating sites who have a few children from "bad boys" who are now looking for "nice guys"? LOL! They had their fun and want someone else to deal with the results! HAHA!

[BobS]

Maybe it is time for men to refuse to work for more than 50-75K. A man can live well on that salary without paying into the welfare state if he realized his potential.

[SauronOfMordor]

Maybe it is time for men to refuse to work for more than 50-75K. A man can live well on that salary without paying into the welfare state if he realized his potential.

That might work out. If you're very productive, instead of going for more pay, go for more time off

[SauronOfMordor]

I haven't really thought this through, so there could be all kinds of holes in it. But it is very clear that we are watching people at work here whose skill at symbol manipulation is waaaaayy higher than average. These are the best propagandists the world has ever seen. They are jerking around a huge culture in which they are perhaps 5 to 10% of the population, if that, and they are jerking it around in ways that unhook millenia-old traditions and taboos. That is absolutely amazing.

Perhaps we are seeing a multiplier effect. Gays are more out-of-the-closet these days, and communicating with each other more, which leads to more opportunities to interact and network. This in turn leads to a higher ability to set up gay "old-boys-networks" so they can push grant funding to each other, and help each others careers, particularly in media (heavily-gay NY Times editorial board), the entertainment industry (Hollywood always had a large gay element), etc. Consider also the Internet, and the effect that things like FR had for the conservative community -- there's probably online communities for gays that serve the same function. So a small number of very smart gays now suddenly has the ability to communicate their ideas to a much larger audience.

A small, tight group can have major impact against an unorganized, larger community. Look at the Bolsheviks in 1917-18

[Nick Danger]

Have you noticed that the equal worth pay issue has died? Maybe the Lesbians are less influential than you think.

Perhaps so. Maybe we should all go back to sleep. Having achieved penalties in law against men on the basis of how individual women feel about things, after the fact, they are now satisfied and we will not be hearing from them again. And if rather large numbers of young men are basically 'on strike' against marriage these days, well, it's their loss. Another 20% of kids will grow up in fatherless homes. And that's a good thing.

When voters think that their kids might well go gay due to external influences, your point of view might gain political traction.

What 'point of view' would that be? If my point of view got 'traction', what do you think would happen? I don't recall offering any policy prescriptions. Mostly I expressed amazement, even admiration, for what are arguably the two most incredibly successful cultural propaganda campaigns in human history. Imagine the wholesale demonization of men, serious changes to fundamental assumptions in law, and jiggering the institutional forms around a 5,000-year-old social institution so as to make it unattractive to large swaths of the male population, all in the space of about 30 years. That's no mean feat. I'm not real sanguine about where these changes will lead, but as a feat of social engineering, I stand in awe.

Your formulation seems to suggest that the concern parents should have about homosexual proselytizing in schools turns on whether or not adolescents can be made to "go gay," and that in the absence of that happening, parents can and should encourage such proselytizing, or at least be complacent about it. Perhaps so. That is not for me to say. I merely note that it is not something I would have expected to see in my lifetime, and for that reason hail it as another truly amazing feat of cultural tweaking.

you have a problem from a political point of view

If you're telling me that most people will choose to do nothing about any of these trends, I wholeheartedly agree with you. We will ride them to wherever they go. To that extent I feel a little like Mr. Spock on the bridge of the Enterprise. "Sensors indicate a large and growing fraction of men refusing to participate in marriage." To which the answers are variously things like 'Men should stop whining,' and 'If they would just find a nice Christian girl, everything would be fine,' or 'Well, I've been married for 25 years, and I don't see any problems.' To which I can only reply, "Fascinating."

[ArneFufkin]

The Bolshevik-ruled Soviet society lost as many as 40 million of their youngest and most educated males in the two World Wars and the Lenin-Stalin purges of 1917-1950. That is a colossal trauma to the imperative of intergeneralional father-son and male peer-peer socialization of young men as playing vital life roles as family providers, protectors and pillars of strength and kindness.

The 5th column has actively pursued the destruction of American society through an indoctrination of generations of women AND men that they males are primitive, violent, dishonest, untrustworthy and ultimately unnecessary in the family by providing economic security and raising their biological children.

Look at Liberal Socialisms great petri dish of anti-male assault: urban "Black" America. Matriarchal cultures become self-fufilling legacies of cultural pathology.

Why do you think Clinton was so popular with the man-hating feminists? He embodied all the traits of moral weakness, dishonesty and betrayal they've been attributing to the male gender in 20 years of women's studies, welfare and media disinformation. He was useful on abortion and child care, two staples of the Government over Male agenda.

A baby boy born to a single mother, devoid of the role model a man provides as a stable role model of loving commitment to a woman and family, is doomed. Mama doesn't need a man around, his dad was no good anyway. Baby girls don't have a male role model to demand that men treat them with love and care. Who needs men? The County pays the bills, and the po-lice and gangbangers take care of the menfolk.

Every father figure portrayed on television, except Bill Cosby and John Goodman, is an insensitive dolt to the wife and kids. Men are "playas", idiots or if they are presented in a positive way, they are a homosexual. We're all Homer Simpson and Al Bundy.

[Nick Danger]

Maybe it is time for men to refuse to work for more than 50-75K.

I don't think you'll ever sell that as a general proposition ("Let's all hose ourselves for the common good!" OK, you first), but there is clearly a 'tipping point' where that occurs.

It is common for guys who get whacked with some of the more generous post-marital settlements to react in exactly that way, and it makes perfect economic sense. If you tell a guy that 50 or 60 per cent of his gross will be taken off the top, that means that the after-tax impact of a one-dollar reduction in salary is 25 or 30 cents, if that. So we see the nuclear physicist deciding to go drive a pizza truck instead. He doesn't really lose that much, but he has thrown a spear at the system that did this to him. Meanwhile the society loses the services of a highly-trained nuclear physicist. So you can see that it's important to do this to as many men as possible, as quickly as we can.

[I_dmc]

To post 135, I can only respond with applause.

[I_dmc]

All evidence points to Western Culture imploding in on itself. One point that I don't believe was mentioned was, "We will not go quietly into the night". I ache inside for what my sons will live to experience.

[Jim Noble]

I have learned a lot from you today.

I revere Nick Danger as a god.

He has been on this since usenet started up.

If only he had a blog, he could save the world...

[Jim Noble]

I assume that we are to take that as a warning that if we would like any more of your scintillating company, we should shut up and talk about what you want.

Tell her about the coconuts.

[Jim Noble]

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 a great system, but it takes the best wives off the market for 20 year old men, creating a large unmarried urban and rural proletariat.

England is still suffering from the result.

[Jim Noble]

Your friend's wife needs to be bitch-slapped by the courts

If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

[sakic]

The whole premise of this article is pure garbage. Men as a whole are behaving worse than they previously did. Yeah, right.

The author in a zeal to come to the conclusions they previously had thought correct, ignores the facts of history.

[Jim Noble]

Hey, Nick! Karl Glasson, Ph.D Doesn't understand that men finally are figuring out that women like a confident, maybe "bad boy" who are a challenge! Gals will complain about them, but how many "nice guys" get laid when they want to?

Bob, you can get laid when you want to in Somalia or Haiti right now.

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.

[Jim Noble]

My best friend got dumped by his ex-wife and now pays well over 40 % of his gross in child support alone. He lives in a tiny walk-up in NYC while his wife and kids have a nice big apt on the Upper East Side. He was pretty near suicidal after it first happened; he certainly is not the same person he was 10 yrs ago, in many ways. And he can barely influence his kids' upbringing, either. Very sad.

He should stop paying.

Really.

[Jim Noble]

But it is very clear that we are watching people at work here whose skill at symbol manipulation is waaaaayy higher than average.

there is more to it than flowers and hair design...