Posted on 04/17/2002 1:58:35 PM PDT by M 91 u2 K
Men of today's older generation grew up in the chivalric miasma of their time, which held that women were morally superior to men, and that civilized men protected women against any available vicissitude. A corollary was that women needed protecting. So common has this understanding been throughout history that one may suspect it of being based in ancient instinct: In a less hospitable world, if men didn't protect women, something disagreeable would eat them, and then there would be no more people. So men did. And do.
Instincts have consequences, particularly when the circumstances requiring them cease to exist.
Because women were until recently subordinate, and in large part played the role of gentility assigned to them, men didn't recognize that they could be dangerous, selfish, or sometimes outright vipers. They were no worse than men, but neither were they better. Men believed, as did women, that women were tender creatures, caring, kind, and suited to be mothers. Males deferred to women in many things, which didn't matter because the things women wanted were not important.
When women came into a degree of power, it turned out that they were as immoral, or amoral, as men, probably more self-centered, and out for what they could get. Not all were, of course, as neither were all men, but suddenly this became the central current. This too followed lines of instinctual plausibility: Women took care of children and themselves, and men took care of women. It made sense that they should be self-centered.
These newly empowered women knew, as women have always known, how to wield charm, and they quickly learned to enjoy power. The men of the old school didn't notice in time. They deferred, and they were blind-sided. They gave gentlemanly agreement to one-sided laws hostile to men.
Political deference became a pattern. It remains a pattern. It probably springs in part from the male's instinctive recognition that, by giving women what they want, he gets laid. Between individuals this worked tolerably well, but less so when applied to abstract groups.
When women said they wanted protection against dead-beat dads, the old school fell for it. They were attuned to saving maidens and the sheltering from life's storms of white Christian motherhood. "Dead-beat dads" was of course that sure-fire political winner -- an alliterative slogan of few words that embodied a conclusion but no analysis. So sure were men that women were the kinder gentler sex that they never bothered to look at the statistics on abuse of children, or the track records of the sexes in raising children.
The romantic elderly male believed -- believes -- that women were the natural proprietors of the young. This led to laws virtually denying a divorced father's interest in his children, though not the requirement that he pay for their upkeep. The pattern holds today. Male judges in family law defer to women, almost any women no matter how unfit, and female judges side with their own. The demonstrable fact that women can and do abuse and neglect children, that a female executive clawing her way up the hierarchy may have the maternal instincts of a rattlesnake, that children need their fathers -- all of this has been forgotten.
The reflexive deference continued. Feminists wanted congress to pass a vast program of funding for every left-wing cause that incited enthusiasm in the sterile nests of NOW. They called it the Violence Against Women Act, and men deferentially gave it to them. Of course to vote against it, no matter what it actually said -- and almost no one knew -- would have been to seem to favor violence against women. A law to exterminate orphans, if called the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, would pass without demur.
There followed yet more male deference to female desires. When women wanted to go into the military to have babies, or a Soldier Experience, men couldn't bring themselves to say no.
When the women couldn't perform as soldiers, men graciously lowered standards so they could appear to. It was the equivalent of helping a woman over a log in the park, the legal and institutional parallel of murmuring, "Don't worry your pretty little head about a thing."
On and on it went. The aggregate effect has been that women have gained real power, while (or by) managing in large part to continue to exact deference and, crucially, to avoid the accountability that should come with power. A minor example is women who want the preferential treatment that women now enjoy, and yet expect men to pay for their dates. In today's circumstances, this is simple parasitism.
Today men are accountable for their behavior. Women are not. The lack of accountability, seldom clearly recognized, is the bedrock of much of today's feminist misbehavior, influence, and politics. Its pervasiveness is worth pondering.
A man who sires children and leaves is called a dead-beat dad, and persecuted. A woman who has seven children out of wedlock and no capacity to raise them is not a criminal, but a victim. He is accountable for his misbehavior, but she is not for hers. It is often thus.
Consider the female Army officer who complained that morning runs were demeaning to women. A man who thus sniveled would be disciplined, ridiculed, and perhaps thumped. Yet the Army fell over itself to apologize and investigate. Again, men are held accountable for their indiscipline, but women are not. Men expect to adapt themselves to the Army, but women expect the Army to adapt to them. And it does. The male instinct is to keep women happy.
Note that a woman who brings charges of sexual harassment against a man suffers no, or minor, consequences if the charges are found to be unfounded -- i.e., made up. A man who lied about a woman's misbehavior would be sacked. He is accountable. She isn't.
Yes, large numbers of women are responsible, competent, and agreeable. Few engage in the worst abuses, as for example the fabrication of sexual harassment. Yet they can do these things. A man cannot throw a fit and get his way. A woman can. Only a few need misbehave to poison the air and set society on edge. And the many profit by the misbehavior of the few.
People will do what they can get away with. Men assuredly will, and so are restrained by law. Women are not. Here is the root of much evil, for society, children, men and, yes, women.
You know, a great many women haven't bought the lie and are deeply saddened by the impact of this course of events and have paid as high a price as men.
Amen and thank you. Have you ever had the experience of saying that's what you believe and having people look at you as if you just grew another head? And yet, it wasn't so long ago that that was the only acceptable way.
Assuming you are a man you seem to not think highly of your own gender, as if a man has no choice but to have sex with so-called "liberated" women. That is affirming what many of them say: that men have no control. I mean, if these kind of women are not what you want, then leave them alone. If enough men take that initiative I think a lot of women might rethink their positions.
What if I have to go to the bathroom?
The following is from Sanders' Union Fourth Reader, by Charles W. Sanders, originally written in 1863 and republished in 1875:
LESSON LXXXV
GETTING THE RIGHT STUFF
J. G. Holland.
"The first great lesson a young man should learn, is, that he knows nothing; and that the earlier and more thoroughly this lesson is learned, the better it will be for his peace of mind, and his success in life. A young man bred at home, and growing up in the light of parental admiration and fraternal pride, can not readily understand how it is, that every one else can be his equal in talent and acquisition. If bred in the country, he seeks the life of the town, he will very early obtain an idea of his insignificance."
"This is a critical period in his history. The result of his reasoning will decide his fate. If, at this time, he thoroughly comprehend, and in his soul admit and accept the fact, that he knows nothing and is nothing; if he bow to the conviction that his mind and his person are but ciphers, and whatever he is to be, and is to win, must be achieved by hard work, there is abundant hope of him."
"--Society demands that a young man shall be somebody, not only, but that he shall prove his right to the title; and it has a right to demand this. Society will not take this matter upon trust,--at least for a long time; for it has been cheated too frequently.--"
The women's liberation movement contains large omounts of irrational sadistic hogwash. On the other hand when A woman has been deserted along with three kids, by a playboy husband I suspect I know what she's angy about and woman's lib is the only place she has to go. With a 50+ percent divorce rate women can no longer invest in marriage. Given the condition of the median woman in this country, men can not afford to involve themselve with them for more than a night. Because of my background psychiatrists and therapist occasionally consult me on patients. I hear stories that would curl your hair, which unfortunately have become the norm. seventy-five percent of children in this nation have never seen a healthy male-female relationship in their home.
Before anybody is going to have anything worth a damn, both men and women are going to need to shape up and grow up. Both men and women subject me to temper tantrums when I say that. Each wants to hear it said only their way.
You nailed it....PRECISELY!
-----------------------
That isn't even close to what I said or meant. What I'm saying is that if one guy keeps his pants zipped and she goes off to zonk somebody else, the problem is her's, not the guy who keeps his pants zipped, or men in general. The only possible way for her to keep out of trouble is a total lack of availability of partners. The rational approach is not to need to completely eliminate partner availability, but for them to start using some morality and character.
Let me put it to you in language we can all understand. Women are giving their bodies and emotions to characters they don't know well enought to loan a twenty dollar bill, then complaining about the consequences. I could tie a penis to that fireplug I see out near the street and a large percentage of contemporary women would go out and hump it, then complain bitterly afterwards about how abused they were by men. That isn't a man problem.
It's just like the "feminists"; they may still be a minority but they don't know how to shut up about it. They too have bought the lie that you should never be ashamed.
And they could probably stop by the office for condoms and a thumbs up from the principal.
-----------------------------
Looking at the statistics, half the girls in Anrica have been what we blithly call sexually active at age 16. About 90% by age 19. According to Dr. Gabe Mirkin and the cdc 50% of women between age 22 and 40 have VD at any particular time. Any man who takes the moral high road ends up with virtually no one to date.
And what better term would you use to describe such despicable examples of female reprobates such a Hillary, Patricia Ireland, and others like them. No, I didn't miss your point, and I have seen it also to some extent, but it is most frequently used to describe these type women. I have found the majority (granted with some exceptions) of the men on this board to be very respectful of women, at least of the women here.
Care to tell the rest of the story. What are the statistics on male sexual activity and vd.
Or did all these girls get them from toilet seats?
Silly me. I mistakenly thought you were crazy as you got your feminist panties all in a wad. Why, with all your name calling and your constant reminders of how MDs, psychologists, psychics and the like read your essays, I thought your were an impotent, perturbed wimp. Wow!
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.