Men Behaving Badly

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.

What can possibly account for this apparent deterioration in the behaviours of western men?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

If men won't vote their interests...

They can't, because no one will represent their interests. Part of what happens when a society becomes "feminized" is that it moves back toward what I call Monkey Rules. Under monkey rules, there is a small cadre of alpha males, but all the rest of the males are so much baggage to the troop except for their ability to hoot and holler at rival troops or to forage for food. Monkey rules were in effect for a very long time. The idea of "nations of free men, all created equal" really arrived only with firearms and the Magna Carta. It's a relatively recent development.

The "Alpha Males" in Congress and so on do not represent "men." They represent themselves first, and their harem second. They do what alpha male monkeys do: they use state power to extract resources from the other males, and shovel those resources into their own pockets and to the females. This is a good deal for the females, so they vote for more of it. Every time you hear about another government program for assisting with "child care" or "subsidizing motherhood," you are watching alpha male monkeys making their females more dependent on them. The women cheering this on see the state as a more reliable (He's immortal, swoon) provider than those ordinary male monkeys.

You can't knock this system for effectiveness... it worked for a very long time. It still works in the jungle, and among monkeys. It never really went away.

What makes it possible to bring it back now is that we are a long way from the Magna Carta and the days when a few hundred armed men could persuade the King that maybe we oughta make things more equal around here. The King-with-overwhelming-force is back, and so are his nobles, and soon so will be the serfs.

The problem the King is going to have is that we don't live in the trees anymore. Kings today need airplane mechanics and truck drivers and sewage-treatment engineers. You can't really put a gun to someone's head and make them do a good job at that. They have to care, or you end up like the Soviet Union did where the planes crash, the ships sink, and the buildings fall over. Monkey rules won't work in a technological society. Forty years after Helen Reddy roared, men are still doing 95% of the work that keeps the technological trains running. If the space aliens were to beam up all the male diesel mechanics, the food distribution system in the U.S. would crash within weeks.

The space aliens probably won't be by, but what will happen is that diesel mechanics whose children have been taken away from them, who are under restraining orders for some bogus spitefest by the ex-, and whose paycheck is being garnished to the point where they have $400 a month to live on, develop yer basic 'fuggit attitude.' Do that to enough of your diesel mechanics and garbage-scow tenders and refinery workers, and one day the whole thing just sorta falls over. And the guys who could've prevented it look at the mess and say, "You fix it."

Every time I read another one of those articles about the Irresponsible Young Men who behave as though they have lost interest in whether tomorrow is any better than today (for anyone but themselves), I wonder what's going on at their jobs. "Valve needs replacing? Aww, fuggit." Close the hood and go get lunch.

I think you're wrong. Name one instance of this phenomenon.

I do not understand your comment. There are three "phenomena" in the paragraph you referred to: years, individual men deciding that they no longer support the continued existence of a government which they consider their enemy, and governments falling over and expiring.

Are you challenging me to name an instance of a year? OK, 1985. An instance of a fallen government? That's the end point, we only get one of those, at the end. Asking me to name other instances of the government falling over makes no sense. So we're left with men who no longer think highly of a government that they see as their enemy. What do you want, a list? Are you suggesting there are no such men?

Hahahahahahahah! An organized movement by the working class to bring down society? Hahahahahahahah!

My editor warned me that a few dull normals might have that reaction, so he had me put in, "It's nothing organized, it's just a million little decisions not to give a damn anymore." Didn't do a damned bit of good, I see.

I thought the Soviet Union collapsed in a macro way, not a micro way.

It fell over. It was there one day, and the next day it was gone. Not a shot was fired. It was all a facade, corroded from the inside out. One day the shiny surface just collapsed... there was nothing behind it to hold it up.

There are three "phenomena" in the paragraph you referred to: years, individual men deciding that they no longer support the continued existence of a government which they consider their enemy, and governments falling over and expiring.

Seven years ago I thought we were about fifteen years away from government losing the consent of enough of its male governed that it would be pushed into falling. That still seems about right to me. I was referring to this: I thought we were about fifteen years away from government losing the consent of enough of its male governed that it would be pushed into falling.

You are (well, seemingly), saying that males will rise up and rebel against society, gubmint, whatever. I don't think this is true. If it were true, it would have happened by now (what with the destruction of marriage, feminized child support/custody, and bogus protection orders). Guys don't care. So, to reiterate, name one instance of one guy rebelling about "...government losing the consent of enough of its male governed that it would be pushed into falling.

My editor warned me that a few dull normals might have that reaction, so he had me put in, "It's nothing organized, it's just a million little decisions not to give a damn anymore." Didn't do a damned bit of good, I see.

Oh please. You should be above tyring to dish out insults. Again, please give an example of one (ONE!) "little decision not to give a damn anymore".

It fell over. It was there one day, and the next day it was gone...

Assignment for tonight - compare and contrast the demise of the ussr with the demise of the us.

You are (well, seemingly), saying that males will rise up and rebel against society, gubmint, whatever.

No. There is no uprising. There's no need for one. Men can simply turn their backs on the whole thing. It's easy. For young men who didn't get roped into the marriage-and-divorce grinder, life will be different, but not bad in any way for them.

Being responsible for everything is work. The 'marriage deal', for men, was to put on a harness for thirty years and go be a draft animal. In return for this he got some semblance of honor and respect, and children he could enjoy and claim as his little contribution to the future. The electric linesman who got out of bed at 2 in the morning to go out and fix a downed power line in a snow storm didn't do that because it was fun. He did that because on his way out he would peek in the other bedroom and see those little ones in their cribs and think, "with this overtime we could buy them new beds."

Take away the guy's kids and his house, put him in a studio apartment with a hot plate instead of a stove, and all the air goes out of him. He used to care about making the world a better place for his kids. Now he doesn't care whether the world rots. In fact he hopes it does.

Except for the occasional nut (and we have had a few), you are not going see guys grabbing an M-1 and charging the Capitol. That's insane. The guy gets killed, and nothing changes. What we get instead are guys who have given up. They're Beat Dead Dads... squashed by a government that they hate, but that is too big and too powerful to take on. It has police and guns and courts and jails... the Rambo stuff is fantasy. The lights have gone out on these guys. But the fact that they don't care anymore collectively has a huge impact. We can't see it happening, but there is rot and decay building in all the little places where these guys work. If you've ever worked in a place where there was some kind of takeover, and all of a sudden everybody hates coming to work and nobody gives a damn anymore, you have seen how this proceeds. It all looks just peachy on the surface, but underneath, stuff is not getting done. The stuff that is getting done isn't being done well. The place never explodes, it just sort of creeps along. And one day it falls over.

give an example of one (ONE!) "little decision not to give a damn anymore".

What, you think somebody's going to publicize this? "Yep, I'm the guy who saw the wear marks on that worm gear in the MD-80, and I admit, I shoulda done something about that before it went down with all those people in it, but ya know, I just don't have the energy on this that I once did."

Nobody's going to write that. The stuff is just going to happen. I don't know that that particular incident happened that way, but you almost seem to be arguing that we can expect no ill effects from taking away from men the one thing that throughout human history, has caused men to organize themselves and bust their butts to make the future better than today.

A young man today can have no realistic expectation that he will be allowed to live in the same house with his own children, or to participate in raising them in any way. It's a total crap shoot, with a 50% chance of winding up in the studio apartment with the hot plate. That changes the game of "life" for men very dramatically. Now the "future of the world" doesn't matter anymore. The whole thing is "get by" and "have fun." It's actually an enormous relief, and in that way seductive. But for the society, it's a killer. The world is full of "matrilineal cultures" where men do not know who their children are, or have no ongoing contact with them. Look at 'em. 5,000 years later, they're still living in grass huts.

"Norway rats have been bred in scientific laboratories since the middle
nineteenth century. Artificial selection has elicited-partly
through unconscious choices by laboratory personnel-a strain of rats
that is calmer, tamer, less aggressive, more fertile, and with significantly
smaller brains than their wild ancestors. All this is a convenience
for those experimenting on rats.

In a now-classic experiment, the psychologist John B. Calhoun let
Norway rats reproduce in an enclosure of fixed size until the number
of occupants, and therefore the population density, was very high. He
made sure, however, to provide everyone with enough to eat. What
happened?

As the population increased, a range of unusual behavior was
noted. Nursing mothers became somehow distracted, rejecting and
abandoning their infants, who would wither away and die. Despite the
surplus of ordinary food, the bodies of the newborn would be greedily
eaten by passersby. An adult female in heat or estrus would be pursued
relentlessly, not by one, but by a pack of males. She had no hope
of escape, or even sanctuary. Obstetrical and gynecological disorders
proliferated, and many females died giving birth, or from complications
soon after. When crowded together, the rats lost their inclination
or ability to build nests for themselves and their young; their desultory
constructions were amateurish and ineffective.

Among the males Calhoun distinguished four types: the dominant,
highly aggressive ones who, although "the most normal," would occasionally
go "berserk"; the homosexuals who made sexual advances
to adults and juveniles of both sexes (but, significantly, only to non ovulating
females): their invitations were generally accepted, or at
least tolerated, but they were frequently attacked by the dominant
males; a wholly passive population that "moved through the community
like somnambulists" with nearly complete social disorientation;
and a subgroup Calhoun calls the "probers," uninvolved in the struggle
for status but hyperactive, hypersexual, bisexual, and cannibalistic.

(from Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan-Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors 1992 pages 184-185)
_________________________

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:vjj8FGZBelYC:luna.cas.usf.edu/~miles/belchpt9.htm+%22behavioral+sink%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Animal study: Calhoun and the behavioral sink …. In his study rats were placed in a "perfect" environment, had adequate resources and were allowed to reproduce freely. The cage was designed so that 2 of the 4 rooms had only one entrance/exit, while the other 2 rooms had 2 entrances/exits. What happened was that in the 2 rooms with limited entrance/exit, a dominant male was able to maintain reasonable order, with limited crowding, normal feeding, socialization, and breeding. In the two rooms with multiple entrances/exits, no single male was able to maintain a normal dominance hierarchy, high density occurred, social order broke down, 4 classes of males developed (including marginally normal dominants, pansexuals, passive neutrals, and probers who were "hyperactive, hypersexual, homosexual/cannibals") and two classes of females (one abnormal in almost all manner, and the other marginally normal) occurred. Total chaos occurred in rooms 2 and 3. ….Would humans, if faced with such density levels act the same way?

Wow! May I use that and add to it. I think the 25+ million immigrants who will either go back to mexico or remain here on the welfare tit will contrbute to the problem.
I see the problem at work. Noone cares. They have no job loyalties. They have no pride in doing a good job like the men I worked beside 25 years ago.
And I thought it would take a armed revolution. It wont It will just fall apart especially when gov.org self destructs with their monetary problems.If they dont send out those welfare checks because not enough men are working to pay for them look out

Too many illegals are working under the rader here in the southwest. White foks are not dumb. They will start to do it to. Workers comp, general liability, medicare, soc. sec. unenjoyment insurance, commercial auto policy have all skyrocted in the past two years creating many problems for my business.
Many people are cheating the system. I was raised with morals and honesty and have not resorted to cheating but many are for the quick buck.
I could go on but I have to go pay the IRS.

O, another thread of men-are-pitiful-victims, and nostalgia for the Good Old Days when women were chattel, etc. & etc. and you're all a bunch of wimps.

I hope you won't mind (you probably will, but too bad) if I use your note as an example of how women subconciously push the world toward monkey rules.

The idea of all men being created equal thoroughly confuses female reproductive programming, which wants to see some scheme out there for separating the alpha males from the chaff.

A society where the alpha males cannot really be identifed until they are almost 40 years old presents an enormous challenge to women. Time was, they could just look for the brutes at 15 or 16, and the same guys would still be king of the hill thirty years later. Now some nerd like Bill Gates, who probably couldn't get a date except with Mary Louise Girthwaist, turns out the billionaire... while the guy who was captain of the football team is now a meter reader for the gas company. Oh, for the days when you could just look for the guys with Duke or Earl in front of their names, and be done with it.

See, this is what's wrong with Title IX. The whole thing with high school and college athletics that the males can demonstrate how fast they can run and how high they can jump so that the girls can tell which of them are alpha males. Most girls could care less about jumping high and running fast themselves, they want the boys doing that so they can see which of them are the high jumpers and the fast runners. Today of course Bill Gates ends up the billionaire, but this is an age-old system and everybody pretends that it still has some predictive value.

So women have to operate in this thoroughly confusing place where any one of these nerds might turn out to be an alpha, and where brutishness — while exciting for some of those same age-old reasons — is almost a contra-indicator of future potential. What to do?

Raise the bar, and find some more bars to raise. Here's an idea: let's have the government squeeze these guys with every kind of arbitrary and discriminatory measure, and see which ones make it through the screen. Let's go compete with them ourselves in their so-called labor force and see which ones we can knock out and send to the botttom. Let's fill the whole culture with messages that tell little boys that they are genetic defectives who really ought not be here at all. A whole bunch of 'em won't make it past that one, and some more of the chaff will be eliminated.

Are women really sitting around consciously thinking such things? Hell, most people don't think... period. They just do stuff. But stratifying society to identify alpha males is a major need of female reproductive programming, and that goes pretty deep. It's probably down there in the lizard brain at the base of the skull, so it ain't going away.

So what does your note have to do with that? Well, shreiking at men that they are not to take down the bars, they are to jump over them, is part of making monkey rules work. "I am sick of hearing from men about this airplane we built that crashes half the time and leaves them dead. If they weren't such wimps, they'd just get on the damned thing."

Well, dead is a big number. Men will jump over the hurdles and block for the running back, but this deal of losing your kids and your house and being sentenced to twenty years of grinding poverty... naww, screw that.

That can only lead to more shrieking, because there's some reason to suspect that a man who won't get on an airplane that is known to crash frequently is a potential alpha. So instead of being some sort of courage test, this really high bar we put up turns out to screen against alphas.

Oh well, let's try shaming them into it... we'll tell 'em they're pitiful wimps, and immature, and irresponsible for not getting on the crashing plane. That'll work on at least some of 'em, at least until we come up with something else.

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.