[M 91 u2 K]

My solution is that instead of feminizing our young men and making our young women more masculine, we do something else. What that something else is I have no clue??

[Hodar]

How about responsibility for your actions, regardless of gender?

[Valpal1]

How about masculinizing our boys and feminizing our women?

BTW, the author is a racist pig who hates women. They were attuned to saving maidens and the sheltering from life's storms of white Christian motherhood.

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.

[robert0122]

We men should see to it that our families are run, and our children are raised, according to the Bible. (This, of course, presupposes that the Bible is true - which is what I believe.) The Bible makes some pretty clear distinctions between men and women in Ephesians 5:22-6:4, 1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Timothy 5:1-16, Titus 2:1-6, and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Like I said, this is based on believing the Bible. If you don't believe it, then I suppose you'll have to come up with something else. :-)

[BibChr]

(Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)

Well, I suppose that's one way to spend your last brief moments on earth....

Dan

[Don Myers]

bttt

[ellery]

How about recognizing that any sweeping generalizations about groups as large as "women" and "men" are patently absurd? How about recognizing that women and men are individuals, not stereotypes? Switch the genders in this article, and it sounds as bad as something that idiot Patricia Ireland would write.

[RLK]

(Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)

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

The majority of them have. They have foregone serious long term relationships with women.

[ex-snook]

It's all over folks. Women are making men gay. The answer is in your water supply. A recent study in England showed that the

Fears over the "gender bender" effect of pollution, arose after Environment Agency research showed that half of all the male fish in low-lying English rivers are changing sex as a result of water pollution.

The source of contamination is believed to be urine from tens of thousands of women who use the contraceptive pill.

Sperm counts are going down steeply in England. Is contraception our own suicide bomb? By the time women decide to have another baby boom, the men will be gay. What goes around comes around.

[joathome]

"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"

yeah, yeah, yeah. Men could live by a double standard for thousands of years, but women could not. Now, that a bunch of feminazis want a chance to catch up, women are "probably more selfish"? The author's bias is a bit too apparent.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough?

I don't know about you guys, but I wear the pants in my house!Whatever pair she tells me to.

[boris]

Some years ago, while Patsy Schroeder was happily shoving crescent wrenches in our military, the L.A. Times ran a whiny opinion piece by an anguished mother of boys. No toy guns, yet they would still play shoot-em-up--and use branches as "guns".

I sent a letter to the paper, which they actually printed:

"Ms. So-and-so is frustrated because she is unable to convert little boys into little girls. Meanwhile, Patsy Schroeder is trying to turn women into men."

==============================

The feminization of the military had a goal, which was to weaken the U.S. military and America in general. The thinking was:

- Women would get pregnant...reduces readiness.
- There would be conflicts over who dates who...reduces unit cohesiveness.
- In a battle, a wounded woman will 'naturally' cause all of the men to focus on her--and neglect the pressing task of keeping their unit alive.
- Eventually you will see technicolor film of a 21-year-old farm girl bleeding her guts out on the sand. The leftists calculate that this will destroy morale--and more importantly, it will destroy public support for the projection of U.S. military strength.
- If they get film of a female P.O.W. being tortured and raped, they will be ecstatic.

No matter what--they win and America loses.

--Boris

[dcwusmc]

bump to read later

[Dec31,1999]

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.

Yes, but now, when men get laid, most often there is no child nor family to need him, which vigorously upsets the balance of nature.

It's not NICE to fool with Mother Nature!

[biblewonk]

If men have to ask if they should put their foot down, or wait until they are told to put their foot down, it's too late for those particular men.

[Lorianne]

This article makes some good points but overall it is dishonest in it's central premis, that men have traditionally had women's best interest at heart. This is not universally true. All one has to do is to examine traditional cultures and societies, not only in history, but ones which exist today, where women have ZERO political, social or economic autonomy.

Exhibit A: Islamic countries. Is the price of relinquishing all decision making to males: honor killings, forced marriages, girls and women bartered and sold into sexual indenturing, bartered and sold to pay debts sold, or sold into prostitution to pay debts? If so, who would fault women for deciding that there must be something better than the costs of this type of "protection" for the less fortunate of their members?

Read this article on the state of girl/women's "protection" in Pakistan, a very patriarchal traditional society where men's duty is to "protect" girls/women.

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/ASA330062002?OpenDocument

It seems to me the type of chivalrous "protection" offered to many women in return for relinquishing autonomy is akin to the type of "protection" offered by the Mafia to small business owners. If you pay are compliant and don't balk at the price we ask you to pay, perhaps nothing unfortunate will happen to you on your way home.

This is not to say the pendulum hasn't swung too far in another direction. But all this rosy picture painting of the "chivalry" of the past is dishonest. The older ways had/have many liabilities for women and these liabilities do not equal out with the beneifits. The old "protection" system has has been rejected by women in modern societies. Western women (and increasingly all women around the globe), have flat out indicated that they have little or no stake in maintaining the status quo systems of the past which on many levels DO NOT and DID NOT look out for their basic minimum bodily safety let alone their best interests in health, edcuation, and general happiness. This is the lure of "feminism" or indeed of any popular rebellion against the status quo. Sometimes people would rather face an uncertain future than face the known inequities and injustices of the past.

What many anti-feminists fail to do is look at the past with a critical eye. They also fail to acknowledge the tremendous progress and superiority of countries who have embraced women's greater autonomy over countries which haven't. It is plain to see that overall, everyone in society is better off when women are engaged in the political process. Even with the problems inherent in change (and there are always problems) we are all better off (not just women) by moving forward not backward in history.

[IronJack]

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.

When was the last time "60 Minutes" did an expose on deadbeat moms or welfare breeders?

[Ohioan]

Instincts have consequences, particularly when the circumstances requiring them cease to exist.

This is the writer's mistake. Circumstances requiring our instinctive sex roles have not ceased to exist. On the contrary, the happiness of both sexes would be far better served--in the present--if we returned to our sense of instinctive roles. We would also have a far more purposeful existence; less crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and substance induced detachment.

Those instinctive sex roles are what brings out the best in each of us. (See The Feminist Absurdity.) In their absence, you have the sort of purposeless existence that leads to senseless adolescent rage, as at Columbine.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[arm958]

Consider the female Army officer who complained that morning runs were demeaning to women

I found myself agreeing with this article until I came to this line. The author has taken this out of context and provides no source. I am quite sure that the author is refering to cadences which are demeaning to women, not the act of running. I know of no female officer (or other soldier) who has ever publicly complained about the physical aspect of morning runs. I may be wrong though.

[Cap'n Crunch]

LOL, we were just talking about this in briefing this morning. When the court or police have a woman sign a temporary protection order, the man is held to it and arrested if he violates it. The woman on the other hand is not, the judges are throwing the TPO violation cases against women out because they are "victims."

Ridiculous.

[timydnuc]

My answer to this "crisis" is to act like a man. My three heros in life are 1) my Dad, 2) John Wayne, & 3) Jimmy Stuart. I pi$$ off feminazis but I attract most pretty woman. But, that don't matter, because my lady loves me for it and I'm real happy for that, and she's a knockout! By the way, I don't play around, nor will I ever...I told you, she's a knockout!