Men Behaving Badly - Why?

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

[Nick Danger]

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.

Talk about learning something ugly the hard way... when I was young you could not have convinced me in a million years that a mere media-driven propaganda fest could cause such changes. To me it seemed obvious that men and women were on this planet together, and we had figured out how to make that work. Here we were and doing pretty well. There were billions of people now. We had electricity... flush toilets... amazing machines that whisked us around at 70 mph. We didn't have to worry about tigers jumping out of the bushes at us. Humans were doing pretty well.

Could women be taught to hate men? It sounded preposterous. People promoting such a thing would be fighting biology. They'd be fighting the evidence all around us that we've come a long way together. Naww, it'll never happen.

But it did happen. It actually worked. A depressing number of women have no clue what they sound like anymore. They're bigots. Kind-hearted bigots... bigots who care. But bigots nevertheless. It's way down in there... they don't even see it. Aside from the shriekers, it's not even in anything they say. It's in the assumptions that underlie what they say.

Men are sub-human. Men do not matter as individuals or as human beings. Are their young being taken from them as if men were animals? They should shut up and stop whining about that. They can and should be pushed aside, while still being there to hold everything up.

How does one get to a place in one's head where the horror of that is not immediately apparent? There's only one way: by dehumanizing them. By thinking of men as not really being human. Sixty or seventy per cent of women think like this now, and an amazing number of men have bought into it as well.

I hear this stuff and it thoroughly saddens me. It's hard to see how a society comes back from this without going through some gut-wrenching trauma to cleanse it out. Some very evil people did this, but it's done now. It's taken on a life of its own. The Grand Cooperation that took humans from the trees to the Moon is falling apart all around us. It's all 'competition' and 'me, me, me', and 'my government will squash you subhumans like a bug.'

I'm not surprised anymore that we never went on to Mars. Or even went back to the Moon. Striving for Big Things? That's what men do. And there's almost no point to it anymore. Get by, have fun, and stay away from the buzzsaw. That's the plan.

[I_dmc]

re: usenet. ah, newsgroups. oh, the days...

[disclaimer]

Nick Danger: 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."

Nick - in all of your pondering and wondering what went wrong in our culture, I'm wondering if you noticed that there is a common denominator.

Did you ever stop and ask yourself- why is it that the liberals stand for everything and anything yet they remain united against the conservatives? Conservatists on the other hand have a much more narrow definition of who is considered friend or foe.

What's the key? If you want to be united with the liberals, all you have to do is hold a belief against Christian and biblical principles - then you're part of the team. You see, our country was founded on Christianity and biblical principles - the founding fathers were all Christian. Our laws were even written with reference to specific verses of the bible back then. Our Bill of Rights was derived from the Magna Carta and the Ten Commandments. (Goggle "Magna Carta" "Ten Commandments") - so all you have to do to join the united liberal front is oppose a tenet of Christianity and the bible. I strongly recommending reading America's Real War written by a Jewish Rabbi. Since most people have fallen away from taking their faith seriously, most cannot see this otherwise obvious connection.

The Ten Commandments is the foundation, a well defined foundation, to build civilization. Take that away, then nothing can be agreed upon and laws are made that contradict each other and before you know it what is right is wrong and oppression sets in. Most conservatists don't understand this, they only know that they want what the constitution lays out but without understanding the context of how it came about. It's Christain Christain Christain - not multicultural nor is it Libertarian where God is removed from the picture.

Christiananity is misrepresented and dismissed by popular culture as oppressive, backward, and closed minded in this country - that is exactly the cause of this cultural demise you ponder without end - and exactly where those who want to bring down this country attacked first in the culture war.

Nick, you give far too much credit to those 'few' feminists that have such influence. You see, they are pawns to the evil that unites the liberal forces against God, truth, and reason. The Evil Empire and Axis of Evil, that two conservative presidents spoke of, is in our own backyard. Feminism is only one part of it.

[quebecois]

One of mankind's great problems is finding a way to bind a man to a woman and the children she bears by him. It is somewhat against the man's self-interest to spend his life with one woman and working to further her (and the kid's) interests. Various cultures have generally solved this problem by creating a marriage "deal" or contract. Basically, the deal is:

The woman agrees to:

1) recognize the man as the leader of the family unit (not tyrant, but leader...a distinction that escapes the feminists).

2) remain faithful to him (so that he knows that the kids are his)

3) Work to take care of his kids and the household

The man, in return, agrees to:

1) Work to earn a living for his wife and kids (the average married guy probably spends 80% of his income on his wife and kids...not a ratio which can appeal to self-interest alone).

2) Remain faithful to his wife so that she knows that his work will not be divided with other women and children.

3) Protect the family from physical danger.

The feminists came along and unilaterally threw the deal out because it was unacceptable to them. They changed the terms and radically altered the contract in a negative fashion for men.

Furthermore, they created two things which allowed women to toss men out completely: child support/alimony and welfare. In traditional societies, if something happens to the man, the woman and children are facing starvation. Its the worst thing that could happen to them. But today, the courts will wring the guy dry...and if he is a bum without assets, the other guys in our society will support her and the kids via taxes (which brings up another interesting issue: namely, as more and more men turn away from society in general and become perpetual adolescents....just who are the feminists expecting is going to be around to pay the taxes to support all of these liberated moms? Clearly, feminist culture is parasitizing the remnants of traditional society by forcing the married men in traditional families to cough up money to support the "alternative arrangements" that are becoming so popular today. Clearly, matriarchy carries with it the seeds of its own destruction)

Men generally have three options in dealing with this:

1) Get married, buy into the system, and hope for the best. Pray that she doesn't decide to toss you out and strip your bank account.

2) Perpetual adolescence. Turn away from the system altogether and live like a teenager.

3) Marry a foreign woman and hope that she doesn't catch on too quickly how things operate here.

One of the problems that men have in our society is that we haven't created alternative, supportive living arrangements for ourselves outside of the traditional family. We tend to either end up in the marriage thing, or living miserably in a small apartment by ourselves.

I predict that, in the not too distant future, men will begin to come together to form alternative living arrangements for themselves which do not included women and children. I envision some sort of adult version of fraternity houses where straight guys can live their lives with other guys rather than the pathetic loner in the apartment. These sorts of things have existed in the past (the Japanese have traditional sumo clubs, for instance, that offer young men a place to live with older guys...complete with a gym, maid service, etc. They tend to function like fraternities...the youngest guys do a lot of scut work and gradually move up the heirarchy).

Once men find some sort of arrangement that offers a nice life outside of the traditional woman/kids deal....you will see a massive movement of middle class, educated men away from the lousy "new deal" that is offered to them by the feminists. The cries that we are hearing from young gals now about there being no good young single guys will turn into a rage. But, they've made this bed for themselves.

Living in a fraternal relationship with 10 or 15 other guys sounds mighty tempting as opposed to being kicked out at 40 with no money, no house, and only rarely getting to see your kids.

[Darksheare]

Interesting point.

[Servant of the Nine]

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'.

Lyndon Baines Johnson's "Great Society" Welfare programs destroyed the Black Family and that gave the example for the rest to follow.

Whining about Political Correctness and Feminists is silly. Both were virtually powerless at the time the damage was done in 1965. It is the fault of all do-gooder liberals, not just a couple of subsets of liberalism.

They just can't help themselves.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one of the very first to warn about this happening, but he could never stop himself from voting to make it happen.

So9

[Darksheare]

It was a community college with several rabid liberal feminist professors.
So I guess the answer could be yes.
It didn't so much have feminist studies, but it had studying feminists.

If that makes any sense.
But the one professor bragged about how many men she'd bagged in bed, yet screamed that one shouldn't think she's a tramp, easy, or cheap. She asked me about that, and my reply was that I didn't think it, she proved that she was trampish, easy and cheap.
Needless to say, I failed that course.

[bvw]

The Welfare programs that gave single mothers incentives to (1) have more kids, (2) not marry, (3) live alone, and (4) be on the dole rather than work were one side of the vice.

The other side of the vice that crushed the head of the black family was the War of Drugs. A misnomer. I've been in a court and seen a young white surburban kid get probabtion for a bag of reefer, same court, same day, same judge, same charge -- a black kid gets 9 months in the workhouse.

If it wasn't that the war in drugs puts so many young black men in jail at the time they would be starting down the path of marriage and fatherhood ... even those poisonous welfare programs alone would not have done the black family in.

The welfare, the vile fatherhood diminishing liberalism and feminism that was the vice plate on the left.

The Drug War, the over-zealous law-and-order -- many a "conservative" fostered that from G Gordon Liddy and Nixon onward. That was the vice plate on the right.

Both those forces twisted the vice screws and the plates busted open the skull of black fatherhood. And left us all a legacy of a generation -- *generations* now -- of fatherless black children, with all the anger any bastard, for the accident he had no cause in of being a bastard, has.

[Nowhere Man]

I hear this stuff and it thoroughly saddens me. It's hard to see how a society comes back from this without going through some gut-wrenching trauma to cleanse it out. Some very evil people did this, but it's done now. It's taken on a life of its own. The Grand Cooperation that took humans from the trees to the Moon is falling apart all around us. It's all 'competition' and 'me, me, me', and 'my government will squash you subhumans like a bug.'

I'm not surprised anymore that we never went on to Mars. Or even went back to the Moon. Striving for Big Things? That's what men do. And there's almost no point to it anymore. Get by, have fun, and stay away from the buzzsaw. That's the plan.

I think you hit it right on the nail again. A little OT, I'm a big space buff myself and I was very miffed that we didn't go further after landing on the Moon we didn't build a moonbase and/or go to Mars. I think you're on to something here as to why. In some ways, we have have regressed, not onto in technology but culturally. If I had a time machine and some money and tools, I would find a way to abort the cultural change that happened in the 1960's. Sadly, it is only a thought experiment but it is nice to ponder.

BTW, I've been reading your stuff on Usenet by Googling it down and they are true pieces of work. BTW, are you still on Usenet?

[Tall_Texan]

As someone "living miserably in his own apartment by himself", this lifestyle sounds preferable to me than living with a group of other guys. As long as one has a job and co-workers, men can have what they need from other males. That's why bars and sports bars were invented - places for males to congregate with minimal female influence.

I prefered living alone to living with roommates. At least alone, I had a better chance of creating an atmosphere most peaceful and agreeable to my own needs.

Call me old fashioned, but a woman's company is not the same as a man's and there are times I desire a woman's company and not just for anything sexual - but to have their point-of-view and their beauty and tenderness.

Unless a man finds some woman he wants to spend *all* his time with (and she agrees), the real dilemma for most men is that the woman demands more from the man than the man needs from the woman. So either the man goes along as the cost of having the woman around when he wants one or he returns to his solitude.

Plus, a bunch of men living together brings back the whole "gayness" concept to anyone outside the arrangement who doesn't understand it or wants to discredit it.

I find your suggestion unpalatable - though that's only my opinion.

[Nowhere Man]

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."

I hope to find me a "nice Christian girl" someday. I know for me, it would be satisfying but that is only a very small part of the problem. It is like holding the line. It is a good strategy in the short term to prevent from being overrun but as time goes on, you will be. So where does that leave us? I'd love to see us go on the offensive, have a "take no prisoners" attitude like the liberals and libertines have but is there enough of us to win?

Ever since I've been surfing the net, I've noticed an interesting trend. Some people who feel like us have basically just chucked the rest and formed their own insular communities. I've seen this with many Christians who form their own communities with their own schools, shops, businesses, etc. Maybe this is what we need to do. Maybe form our own communities and after "The Collapse" when some form of Atlas would shrug, then we'd be in a position to survive and perhaps rebuild. My father seems to think that in my lifetime, I just turned 37, that the United States will collapse and break up if things keep going the way they are.

I know that's a bit nihilistic but sometimes I wonder if it would be a good idea to form communities or when things break up, have our own separate nation of sorts. The liberals and libertines can have their nation until they screw it up, if they would leave us alone to have a decent place to work, live and raise families. As I get older, when it comes to conservatives/Christians vs. liberals/libertines, I feel that segregation of those two philosophies is the true answer. We break off from them or they break off of us nd go our separate ways.

Throughout the last 30+ years, we have seen the trail of woe that the radical liberals, feminazis, peace nuts, hippies, and so on have laid down. That's why in my last message, if I had a time machine and the means to do so, I would try my best to abort the cultural changes of the 1960's. Everytime I see old films, pictures, and even the "Neo-hippies" of today, I feel nothing but rage. I want so much to walk up and punch their lights out and say, "thanks for taking my country away from me." I really weep at what has gone on in my culture and country. I wish I could commandeer all the C-130's at the local Air Force Reserve Base, round up all the hippies and neo-hippies, load 'em up and fly them to Cuba where the belong so they quit bugging us.

I know I'm getting a bit verbose here, but like you, when I get going, I write a lot. I just felt like I wanted to write down every thought going through my head. If somebody should read this and say "I'm an angry male," all I can reply is "guilty as charged."

[disclaimer]

I predict that, in the not too distant future, men will begin to come together to form alternative living arrangements for themselves which do not included women and children. I envision some sort of adult version of fraternity houses where straight guys can live their lives with other guys rather than the pathetic loner in the apartment.

I recall seeing the concept of a state-sponsored half-way home for men owing child support payments - sort of like a debtor's prison for men whom would be sent to prison for not making full payments. The state would allow them to exist in these homes if they worked to pay child support. Being that child support awards have become unreasonable, especially to men who lost high paying jobs, the idea sounded like something out of science fiction where women take over and enslave men saying it's "for the children". The idea sent chills down my spine.

But heck, it's happened twice now that law enforcement wants to take DNA samples from whole groups of men to find a rapist. Why should I be shocked at anything anymore.

[disclaimer]

I know that's a bit nihilistic but sometimes I wonder if it would be a good idea to form communities or when things break up, have our own separate nation of sorts. The liberals and libertines can have their nation until they screw it up, if they would leave us alone to have a decent place to work, live and raise families. As I get older, when it comes to conservatives/Christians vs. liberals/libertines, I feel that segregation of those two philosophies is the true answer. We break off from them or they break off of us nd go our separate ways.

The Free State Project - although I think this is more of a Libertarian group.

[SauronOfMordor]

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...

Nick should do like Fred Reed, do a net column, then when he has enough stuff package it up into a book. I think Nick's stuff is better thought out than Fred's, and Fred makes a decent living off it all, it appears

[SauronOfMordor]

Men are sub-human. Men do not matter as individuals or as human beings. Are their young being taken from them as if men were animals? They should shut up and stop whining about that. They can and should be pushed aside, while still being there to hold everything up.

This is a necessary step in the creation of the Almighty State. The State is a jealous god, and will tolerate no loyalty before it.

The family is more than just the parents and kids. It is an independent decision-making unit, working in coordination with the extended family, which is the original safety net. If there are working extended families, there is less need of the State as the source of benefits and protection

There are several interlocking incentive systems working against the family:

• Lesbian women have an incentive for poisoning male/female relations, because this way the women who go either way are more likely to choose to go the lesbian direction
• Gay men have several incentives to destroy hetero fathers: kill their incentives, and they'll be less competition for gay men in the workplace, plus a teen boy without a father in the house is easier prey for gay "chicken-hawks" (who might be concerned about being disemboweled by an angry father)
• Socialists win by destroying the family, by making the women dependent on the State for collection of child-support payments, and thus more likely to vote for Socialists (AKA Democrats).

[Nowhere Man]

The Free State Project - although I think this is more of a Libertarian group.

Yeah, I've heard a little bit about it, I like the idea very much. Although on many issues I agree with Libertarians on, some I don't but I think they do have the right idea. Hey, if this catches on, maybe the various "free-states" could end up having a NATO-like defensive and trading bloc against the liberals, but that is way, way down the road.

[SauronOfMordor]

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

But for the most part this is only true if you are a warlord, are connected to a warlord, or have money (which you only get to keep if you are connected to a warlord)

We already have Somalia, in most of our "inner cities" (which I prefer to call "abandoned areas"). If you are a woman in the abandoned areas, you are either under the protection of some gang, or you are prey for any gang member who chooses to look at you. Are the police going to protect you? You'll be lucky if they even show up after dark.

If you are a gang-banger, you can get laid whenever you want to (which, lets face it, is a very big incentive for a young male to join a gang). In the absence of civilization, a woman is the chattel property of whoever chooses to be her protector

[SauronOfMordor]

The Ten Commandments is the foundation, a well defined foundation, to build civilization. Take that away, then nothing can be agreed upon and laws are made that contradict each other and before you know it what is right is wrong and oppression sets in.

Dostoevsky's character Ivan Karamazov says "without God, everything is permitted." (Brothers Karamazov)

What he means by that is that, if there are no consequences for actions that can be imposed after death, then death is the end of the game. Whoever dies with the most toys, wins. Whoever has had the most fun, screwed the most women, had the most laughs, has had the "best" life. Many things follow from that premise, none of them good for the survival of civilization.

The only law then becomes "Do as you Will, just don't get caught". We see that attitude alot in our elites.

[Way2Serious]

"Living in a fraternal relationship with 10 or 15 other guys sounds mighty tempting..."

We already have those things:

• The gay lifestyle
• Gangs
• Prisons
• Veterans hospitals I can't think of any that I'd like to join.

[VideoDoctor]

You're CLARITY is impeccable !

You should be SYNDICATED my friend.