Sex, Equality, And Kidding Ourselves (Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)

Feminazi's are just jelous- they weren't born men.
So, the freaks try to act like men...

Have you ever worked around lesbians? Do you know any? I don't think they are "trying" to act like men. I think a whole bunch of them are men. Many of them are mental males who somehow ended up in a female body. By that I mean that you can have a business discussion with most lesbians and you will get back the same stuff you would get back from any man. With most of them, their mental processes are just like yours. It is noticeable different from dealing with female bodies that have female brains in them.

I don't claim to understand how any of that stuff works, and I suppose that in some dictionary sense they are freaks. But I don't think they are so much 'jealous' as they are resentful that men don't accept them as fellows.

And who exactly do you think is RLK trying to pick up with this bit?

I don't think he is literally trying to pick somebody up. I think it's a generational artifact. I don't know if he is chronologically in the WW II generation, but the tack he is taking is typical of that era. The men and women of the WW II generation had an elaborate dance that in fact is kind of fun to watch. The thing is, they honored each other. They celebrated the differences between the sexes, and had elaborate rituals that highlighted the differences in a very kind and loving way.

The act he is putting on here is appropriate for use around women who similarly honor men. He gallantly accepts, on behalf of all men, total blame for the world's problems. If something is wrong, a man did it. Women are not only the moral superiors, but perfect in every other way. In that generation, that act was reciprocated.

Well, it isn't anymore. Most women today will use that kind of chivalry to take the man who does it for a sucker. They'll take what he gives and return nothing. No honor, no thanks, nada.

It is guys like that, still serving as judges, that made the divorce industry possible. They simply cannot bring themselves to find fault with a woman, no matter what evidence is in front of them. They grew up in, and are mentally still living in, a world where women honor men and do not take advamntage of them. You and I do not, and to the extent that such men are still in places of power like the Congress or the judiciary, they are dangerous. While they protect "the little woman," the little woman is competing with us for jobs, promotions, and every other damned thing.

The sooner these "women are weak and saintly and need constant protection at the expense of men" types pass on to their Heavenly rewards, the safer we will all be.

Danger doesn't want to admit men like rapist Bill Clinton and degenerate Teddy Kennedy, the great Chappaquiddic race car driver, exist and that women are angry about it. Now the aren't angry specifically at Clinton and Kennedy because Clinton and Kennedy will ensure they get the reght to abortions when they are through with them. And with the type of Cinton/Kennedy relationships women have become increasingly involved in, they are dependent upon abortions. This kind of analysis is supposed to be characteristic of a diseased generational artifact from WWII.

Basically, I suspect Danger has pulled some shit somewhere and wants off the hook by forbidding any criticism of men whatsoever that might open up possibilities of criticism. That's usually what these arguments boil down to. As I have said, contemporary women have been dead wrong about many thing. So have men. Until they BOTH, that's BOTH, shape up, we're going to continue having a lot of problems in this society, including a 1/3 illigitimacy rate and a 50% divorce rate, and generations of rootless children. Now Danger wants to blame it entirely on women and keep his illusion of his perfection intact. Liberated women want to blame it entirely on men so they can escape blame and responsibility. Consequently anything I say in the way of truth elicits temper tantrums and accusations, and even borderlin psychotic reactions from both sides. Consequently, I have a breed of women screaming at me from one side on this and other threads saying I'm purely on the side of men --and a breed of men screaming at me like little girls on the other side claiming I'm purely on the side of women. --spoiled brats all. Their arguments become progressively distorted as they are cornered.

Whoa, Lorianne, are you equating conditions women endure in certain non-Western societies with those they endure or endured Western societies? I don't recall the horrors and hardships being visited upon women in Western societies over any span of time you wish to consider as ever being as bad as what women are and have faced elsewhere. I recall no "clitorectomy" (parts of Africa, today) nor "kitchen deaths" (rural India, today still) nor the woman being killed when her husband died (Egypt, India). You will not convince folks by blaming one group for something it didn't do.

What is the sense of having a woman cop if she cannot handle an aggressive criminal alone?

I had my car searched for drugs in an incident similar to the one you describe. I was searched ("voluntarily", you understand....sure!) because I was driving an older GM northbound in a stream of heavy holiday traffic. Against an impossibly crummy likelihood of getting a good reading, I was illuminated perfunctorily by radar and pulled over, while the nearly-new pickup truck running door to door with me was allowed to go on unmolested. While the she-bear searched through the contents of my trunk (mostly Christmas presents and luggage), a male relative stood by in a bulky coat, and as I wandered around aimlessly killing time while the female trooper searched away, I noticed that the man (her father-in-law, a retired lawman) kept adjusting his own position so that I was always at the top of a triangle, with him and her defining the base -- I was "downrange", no doubt about it. I could have picked up an easy $500 by finding some sucker who would have bet me that the man's coat didn't conceal a big-bore former service piece. It was a lovely feeling, standing around by the busy roadside, unarmed, passing time as someone else's tactical solution.

This charade, I found out later, was necessitated by a little roadside drama that had transpired a couple of months previously when another female trooper pulled a similar search-incident-to-stop on a mountainous black guy who turned out to be a parolee who'd had the bad judgement to leave a small bag of grass sitting on the seat of his truck. His answer to the sudden threat of immediate reincarceration was to break her face. One swing, that's all it took -- the rest was just insurance.

Yeah, they can handle themselves, all right.

Not for one minute do I believe that women jumped ship first. It was men who shirked responsible leadership and women responded with feminazism.

The abbandonment of Patriarchy for the Playboy philosophy is what started the gender war, it's just that the playboys have been very good at ducking and the patriarchs have take the shellacking.

Playboy appeared when, in 1952? Ten years before Betty Friedan's screed appeared, The Feminine Mystique. Do you for an instant think she'd not have written it, if only Hefner had never published his rag, nor opened a club?

The nexus between Gloria Steinem and Hefner's club chain (which was still growing in 1965, and not yet what it became later) is an interesting collision of feminism with the "Playboy philosophy" (excuse the oxymoron), but it isn't definitive, and it doesn't describe cause and effect. Feminism was a reaction to middle-class family life, not to Hefner and his clubs. A better hornbook for the dissatisfaction of middle-class married life was made by Paul Newman and his RW wife in the film Mr. and Mrs. Bridge, which I confess I've yet to see. But that was what feminism was about -- that, and Friedan's having given up a place in college to pursue a boyfriend who later jilted her. Hers was a tale a million times told by people of both genders, of promises made and then broken -- but her monumental ego had to transmogrify it into a national cause celebre, spitefully to repay the male gender a thousand times for her hurt, her disappointment, and her annoyance. In the end, the tale will lie where it belongs, at her feet.

Steinem has given us a key by marrying late in life, and giving the lie to her infamous mots like "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." The correct answer to which is that, she may not, but her children damn sure do.

In the end, I think history will remember feminism as the wonderful organizationally-magnified realization of Friedan's monumental tantrum, and Steinem's dissatisfaction with her boyfriends.

>>Whoa, Lorianne, are you equating conditions women endure in certain non-Western societies with those they endure or endured Western societies?<<

I can't find the relevant post, but yes, she probably is.

American wives are the richest, safest, and most long-lived women on the planet, now, or at any time in human history.

You would not necessarily know this from watching Lifetime, however.

Hefner and his magazine are hardly the orignator of the philosophy of sexual libertinism and using women as objects or tools of the hedonistic lifestyle.

Hefner was merely the errupting pimple of a the underlying change in attitude occurring accross America. His enterprise would have landed him in jail if the underlying attitude had not changed before he launched his flagship

This isn't the first time in history men have abandoned moral leadership and self control. It's a pretty recurrent biblical theme. The cure is always the same.

There is no free lunch, you cannot have "sexual freedom" apart from marriage. The cost in human misery and social disease eventually spurs a return to a stricter morality, or war and disease reshape the cultural landscape.

Is there any doubt that if BJClinton had been morally self controlled and sexually continent, he might have actually paid attention to American security needs?

A nation of sexually incontinent men, is a nation of moral cripples who can not lead, nor can they provide women and children with the security and nurture that is their God ordained responsibility.

Men can blame angry feminazi sluts all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that leadership was given to men, and that leadership begins with self control, not self indulgence and the use of others.

"Fine with me. I think its a great idea to hand kids over to their fathers to raise. I'd love to see some of these "single-dads" raise the 7 or 8 kids (or God only knows how many) they've fathered. More power to them, I'm sure they'll do a great job! "

Anecdotally, I've known two such men whom you would consider to be the dregs in your misandric barrel. One guy, a formerly illiterate ex-con, ended up with four kids from various relationships. I got to meet him when he won the statewide learner's award in a major volunteer literacy program. Two of his kids were honors students. The other guy, same deal - illiterate until he was about twenty-five - had a couple of kids that he took back when his mother died. They too became honor students under his care. When I think of men as single fathers, those guys always come to mind.

The facts are that roughly 85% of the incarcerated and 80% of pregnant teen girls were raised by single mothers, who make up roughly 80% of single parents. Less than 1% of those groups were raised by single fathers, who make up 15% of single parents. At the very least, these numbers indicate that an involved father is as or more important than an involved support payment.

It's a pathetic myth that the men who've storm enemy lines, dug canals through jungles, and fired themselves off into space in tin cans are incapable of rearing children alone. At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to restart the gender pissing contest - single parenting may be a sub-optimal arrangement, but when men do it, they're generally more successful at it than women.

"Danger doesn't want to admit men like rapist Bill Clinton and degenerate Teddy Kennedy, the great Chappaquiddic race car driver, exist and that women are angry about it." Heh heh heh... So much so that women voted for those guys in unprecedentedly high proportions and are - in fact - responsible as a group for their electoral successes.

--------------------

I explained one reason why, here and elsewher. The last figures I read indicated 50% of women will have contraceptive abortions in their life. More than half the abortions performed are on women who previously had contraceptive abortions. They are depended upon abortion. The Clintons and the Kennedys work to guarantee them those abortions. That trumps all else. That's only part of the story,

----------------

Right now the most powerful social force in the country is Britney Spears, the one with the jeans pulled down to her pubic area and the pierced ear-rings in har navel. Girls are immitating her right and left. What did Madonna and Cher do for standards in this country? The leadership is not purely from men.

So you want your eggs scrambled and sunny side up at the same time... calling them saviors or anti-Christs, whichever is convenient at the time.

Nick Danger used any number of male figures to point out the movers and shakers behind feminism, the one that fit better than your sad-sack examples was Joe Biden.

For you and Lorianne to continue to haul out the lie that anybody here is smearing or blaming women as a class for anything is just dumb. Not even N.O.W. tries to put that old road apple over on anyone anymore, especially after their shameful performance during the Clinton sex scandals.

Anecdotally, I've known two such men whom you would The facts are that roughly 85% of the incarcerated and 80% of pregnant teen girls were raised by single mothers, who make up roughly 80% of single parents. Less than 1% of those groups were raised by single fathers, who make up 15% of single parents. The key word here is "anecdotally". There is a bias in your statistics that the men who are single fathers are to a greater degree single fathers by choice rather than circumstance, therefore they are more motivated to be good parents. The only way to truly prove if the apparent "trend" would hold out, is to switch the numbers around and make 85% of single households "single-dad" households. Then we could compare apples and apples. Until then, its apples and oranges and no comparison.

Which is why I say let's do it. Let's give custody over to men 85% of the time, not by choice but my default (as we do with women now) whether or not there is evidence the father would be a good parent. Then let's check the statistics again. Just hand that newborn over to the father and and the mother walks away. Let's try it and see what happens.

It's a pathetic myth that the men .... are incapable of rearing children alone.

I agree, it is a myth. How did that myth get started do you think? IMO it is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of motivation.

"single parenting may be a sub-optimal arrangement, but when men do it, they're generally more successful at it than women."

Well, I don't agree with this generalization based on the bias in sampling (as I explained above). But nevermind. I could be wrong. Let's give it a whirl and find out!

By the way I too know men who have successfully raised children on their own. One man I know (now about 70) raised 4 children on his own after his wife succumbed to some debilitating illness (I forgot which). In addition he took care of her as long as he could before he had to put her in a care home. He could have divorced her and remarried but he did not until she died and by then the kids were mostly grown.

But this man you could pre-select as the type of individual who would step up to the plate and do the right thing in ANY situation. Not every man, not every woman, has that integrity. We can point to these people as examples, and there are many of both sexes, but the reality is most people are not of that caliber.

Have you ever worked around lesbians? Do you know any? I don't think they are "trying" to act like men. I think a whole bunch of them are men. Many of them are mental males who somehow ended up in a female body.

Can't say as I agree with that. By the time they're out of high school, most males quit trying to play the macho intimidation game. Most lesbians never do. From what I've seen, they hate men, unless they're willing sycophants to the feminazi game, and completely subservient. Woe to the poor little boy who grows up in that environment.

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.