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.
Do you think there is a similarity to those countries where gangs of young men, "Technos", drive pickups with guns mounted in the back, and shoot everyone?Which later prompted me to expand it into an article last year Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?That is the normal state of a matrilineal culture. You can see it in dozens of countries. You can see it in Detroit and Los Angeles. When a society's men do not care about the future, institutional forms of the sort that maintain order and keep things working, either don't develop or break down. The closest thing to "government" in such cultures is a kind of feudalism in which gangs of young men hold sway, usually violently, over whatever territory they can subdue. There is no continuity to this... today's leader is replaced tomorrow by the next jerk with a machine gun. Nor do these "governments" have any purpose except to rape and pillage. The only form of 'order' they provide is keeping rival gangs out of the territory.
This is what human society looks like in the absence of institutional forms of government. And for reasons no one can explain, these forms only develop in cultures where men know who their children are and participate in their upbringing. Raising their own children is what makes men care about the future, and when men care about the future they can do amazing things to make it better. Schools, electricity, running water, roads, sewage systems... all those things are products of institutional forms that never appear in matrilineal cultures. That's why those people all live in mud huts and are constantly migrating to avoid droughts and floods.
It frequently happened that colonial powers from more patriarchal cultures came in and established such institutions. They built roads, schools, and governments. But when the colonial powers pulled out, the institutions collapsed; the underlying matrilineal cultures could not maintain them. There is a message in that for us. But instead of hearing that message, our feminist elites are publishing papers about how fathers don't matter, and how they might even be harmful to children and other living things. Those people are going to send us right back to the mud huts.
Feminism removed these restraints for women, while keeping them for men. Thus the present problem.
Yesterday I went over to my friend's house. After 10 years of marriage and three kids, his wife has decided he doesn't excite her anymore, so she wants out so she can sleep around more freely
He said to me "Y'know I used to have goals. I don't anymore". We spent the time discussing women, and playing computer games together.
The human male's motivation to strive and build for the future is more fragile than feminists may assume. If too many more males feel that way, we may start seeing society going downhill faster than anybody may expect
My friend in #46, the one who doesn't care so much anymore, works as an ER Nurse. Two other friends, software managers, are responsible for systems that manage billions of dollars worth of stock transactions.
When things fall down, it will be ugly
That's one contributing factor to the divorce phenomenon. Successful men in their 40's and 50's get to trade up to "trophy wives".
The flip side is that women in their 30's increasingly decide that their current hubby's career is going nowhere, so might as well dump him while she's still good-looking enough to have a shot at being somebody else's trophy wife next time around
I hadn't really thought about it, but now that I think about it, this happens a LOT.
This is actually an argument for getting married later, e.g. 30+, so that both parties can more accurately project the kind of person they've actually married. It is trite and a (good) generalization, but status matters to both men and women in some fashion, and this plays into the marriage calculus. What a person is doing at 20 these days has almost no bearing on what a person will be doing at 30, and hazarding a guess at that age as to marriagability based on this fact may yield unpredictable results.
Heh. I'm sure all those women who dissed me when I was 20 because I was dirt poor and working my ass off at a crappy job would've had a completely different attitude if they met me at 30. I didn't change but my status did dramatically, which completely changed the playing field for me. I define "trophy wife" a bit differently than they probably expect though, and I can't stand status whores.
Of course, living way below my means and projecting myself as someone of modest resources helps keep a lot of the useless wife candidates at bay.
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.
I've noted your objection in the log.
'Cuz that's when we were allowed to punch the Woman Behave Switch--you know, the one right between a violent or criminal woman's eyes? It turns them right into happy housewives. Use as needed.
Heck, you could probably send me to jail just for the above joke based on the Violence Against Angry Womyn Act....
Then I would commit mayhem.
Yup. Remember them well.
You never heard of Poland's Lech Walesa?
Lech Walesa, an electrician, became an international symbol of worker power in 1980 when during the Lenin Shipyard strike in Gdansk, Poland he successfully rallied demoralised workers to continue to fight for reform. From there, his passion spread to factories across the nation and strikers everywhere began christening the new movement "Solidarity."
| The human male's motivation to strive and build for the future is more fragile than feminists may assume.
That really sucks. Using "fragile" to describe someone who cracks under that might be overdoing it. I cannot think of any regime in human history that ever treated human beings like this. I take that back — Saddam Hussein would take people's children away... he used that as a form of punishment. But the wholesale removal of children from their parents? Where has that ever been done? What regime has ever systematically taken people's children away from them as a policy? Stalin didn't do that. We do it, right here, every single day. We rip children out of men's lives as if men were cats, or cattle. How the Hell did something this weird ever even start? It's the boiling frog story again... each guy would watch it happen to the next guy, but since hadn't happened to him, he didn't give a damn. The people viewing this at the level of individuals still don't give a damn, even though there is massive evidence building that the civilization itself is starting to creak and groan from the stresses. Our culture isn't even replacing itself. "Western Civilization Commits Suicide; Moslems, Chinese to Inherit the Earth". And as our friend from the Junior League put it, what sane woman would want to hear about that? |
| Successful men in their 40's and 50's get to trade up to "trophy wives"... The flip side is that women in their 30's increasingly decide that their current hubby's career is going nowhere, so might as well dump him while she's still good-looking enough to have a shot at being somebody else's trophy wife next time around
The most sexually powerful people are young, fertile women and middle-aged, successful men. From a purely lizard-brain reproductive-programming standpoint, those two groups are magnets for each other. But if you let them actually get at each other, they will wreck marriages and friendships to do it... throwing off two huge pools of people who don't have much use for each other: young men and middle-aged women. Instead of "practically everybody" having a relatively decent life, we end up with one group in some sort of hormonal bliss while everybody else spends fifteen or twenty years in the ditch. That is not a Good Thing. Our scheme to prevent this, while still letting divorce out of the bottle, was to strip the middle-aged successful men of their money on their way out the door, so they could not leave this huge pool of middle-aged women with no money. Lawyers, not economists, though that one up, because the economists would have seen coming a rash of asset-stripping divorces that had nothing to do with "him" walking out the door. We now have that happening to the point that young men see it coming and avoid marriage entirely. It's just one damned Unintended Consequence after another. And it'll just keep getting worse. The right answer is to put divorce back in the bottle. And that won't happen now as long as women have the vote; it's too good a deal for them. |
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
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.
I think "fragile" is an odd term to use there. Having some potentate in a black robe tell you that you are no longer to live in the same house with your children, that you will move out of your house, that you will forfeit all your assets and 64% of your income for the next sixteen years, and that you will be permitted to visit your children — properly supervised, of course, by a licensed social worker — for six hours, twice per month.... that is not exactly a glancing blow.