Discussion with Dr. Leonard Sax on Unmotivated Boys
Here is an interesting transcript of a discussion from the Washington Post article with Leonard Sax, the physician and psychologist who wrote the op-ed, "What's Happening to Boys." The discussion, frankly seems a bit odd to me, as Dr. Sax seems to put some blame for boy's lack of motivation on environmental toxins and video games:
Uhhh, what about girls? Are they exempt from the toxins from plastic containers or do girls actually become even more motivated to attend college and get out of the house than boys when exposed to toxins? It makes no sense to me.
Another commenter asks about video games to which Dr. Sax replies:
Wow, now boys can just sublimate their ambition onto video games. Could it possibly be the other way around? Could some boys play video games to escape being told just how expendable and worthless they are? I don't know--just a theory--since many of my male patients tell me they play video games because they are lonely or feel down. Or just because they are fun.
And finally, another commenter asks Dr. Sax whether young men have opted out of college and career because these choices have become the province of mainly girls. Dr. Sax side steps this comment by saying:
Yep, better not touch that comment with a ten foot poll if you want to stay in the mainstream and sell your new book, "Boys Adrift: what's really behind the growing epidemic of unmotivated boys."
Overall, the rest of the discussion with Dr. Sax was quite interesting. Take a look and let me know your impressions. Do you think plastic is making men live at home until they are 34? Do you think that video games have ruined boys? Does the anti-boy culture hurt boys? Any guys out there 22-34 living at home who can shed some light on this issue?
That's one reason I have begun to pay serious attention to the hypotheses regarding environmental toxins, in particular those toxins derived from plastics. We're all exposed to foods in plastic containers, regardless of our economic status. The possibility that these toxins may play a role in this phenomenon should at least be explored.
.....But here's the problem. We're seeing many more young men today who are unmotivated. In just the past 20 or 30 years, the proportion of young men living at home without the desire to make their own way in life has increased very substantially. Why is that? I don't think human nature can have changed in a fundamental way in just 20 years. Maybe it's partly the influence of video games, or changes in education or the workforce. But I think the possibility of environmental toxins must at least be investigated.
Uhhh, what about girls? Are they exempt from the toxins from plastic containers or do girls actually become even more motivated to attend college and get out of the house than boys when exposed to toxins? It makes no sense to me.
Another commenter asks about video games to which Dr. Sax replies:
Could video games be at least partly responsible for the phenomenon of 'boys adrift'? I think the answer is YES. Video games create a compelling alternative world. Success, victory, conquest in that world may compensate -- in the psyche of the boy/man -- for a lack of achievement in the real world.
Wow, now boys can just sublimate their ambition onto video games. Could it possibly be the other way around? Could some boys play video games to escape being told just how expendable and worthless they are? I don't know--just a theory--since many of my male patients tell me they play video games because they are lonely or feel down. Or just because they are fun.
And finally, another commenter asks Dr. Sax whether young men have opted out of college and career because these choices have become the province of mainly girls. Dr. Sax side steps this comment by saying:
Interesting, provocative, controversial point. I'm not comfortable with your idea that the broader horizons opened to girls over the past 30 years have narrowed the horizons available to boys and young men. But I thought I should post your question, so others can think about it.
Yep, better not touch that comment with a ten foot poll if you want to stay in the mainstream and sell your new book, "Boys Adrift: what's really behind the growing epidemic of unmotivated boys."
Overall, the rest of the discussion with Dr. Sax was quite interesting. Take a look and let me know your impressions. Do you think plastic is making men live at home until they are 34? Do you think that video games have ruined boys? Does the anti-boy culture hurt boys? Any guys out there 22-34 living at home who can shed some light on this issue?
posted by Helen at 1:13 PM
199 Comments:
I wonder if Sax ever took an undergraduate psychology course on learning and conditioning. The parts relating to "punishment" and "learned helplessness" would seem pertinent to these men's behavior.
Dr. Helen,
As a psychologist, you tend to focus on behavioral and societal causes of phenomena like this. As the parent of an autistic child with immune dysfunction, I focus on biochemical and environmental aspects. I don't think either one of us is necesarily right or wrong. In fact, I suspect there can be a variety of causes including many not mentioned here but discussed on your earlier thread.
However, it doesn't surprise me that boys might be adversely impacted - to a greater degree than girls - by environmental and other toxins. Young boys often have more fragile immune systems than girls because they grow bigger/faster than girls, thus putting more stress on their systems. In addition, boys use less of their brain (no jokes please) than girls, so if they do suffer an immunological insult they have less ability to recover. Many speculate that is part of the reason that autism, ADHD, ADD, etc., are more prevalent in boys.
Interesting discussion with Sax. I note much of it revolved around motivation and how we can motivate another.
We don't need to motivate others. Nature has provided our own internal motivation. It's called survival.
Kick the kid out of the house and watch him survive. Think of it as a video game called "Survival." When he's hungry, that night job on the UPS dock looks awful good.
For the kinder and gentler crowd, what would the kid do if his parents were killed in a car crash and left him nothing? Same thing: survive.
Hi Helen:
I am a 22 yr. old persuing a Ph.D, so I don't believe I fit the demographic you describe, however I have a few thoughts I would like to share.
I think both you and Dr. Sax are correct. Video games, as I see them, provide the adventure and competition no longer present in real life, or even in established media outlets. Virtually all online games have rankings, and allow any player to compete on a global stage. Players form groups (clans), working together towards some game objective (assulting a rival castle, for example).
While I stopped playing video games in a systematic manner over four years ago, I still remember the great rivalries between the South Korean clans and the Scandinavian clans. Truly competitive players in Starcraft (a popular strategy game at the time), could acheive an average of 180 actions per minute, or 3 every second. I can only assume the serious players have reached even higher levels of specialization today.
Thus the problem is two-fold. Real-life does not provide venues for the competition boys seek (at least in secondary school), while the increasingly sophisticated and networked game world does.
But I think most boys eventually out-grow their interest in games, and turn that energy towards other pursuits. And I would even hazard to say that games have helped me in my (still-nascent) adult life - sustained concentration, multi-tasking, strategic thinking, and an elusive quality I can only term as "offensive tempo."
The second quality of games, and perhaps the more dangerous one, is that they are mildly entertaining. While I personally didn't play games that didn't have a competitive element to them, there are story-based games that require none of the qualities I enumerated above - only persistence. Games provide a moderate level of enterainment at almost no cost. Going out for a night with friends to dinner, a show, or a club requires money, a presentable appearance, and enough presence of mind to carry decent converstion. To an unmotivated individual, that barrier might seem impossibly high. Games, while not nearly as desirable, have no such barrier. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in highly-wired societies, particularly Japan and South Korea, and to a lesser extent Taiwan (my homeland), HK, and China.
Personally, I'm conflicted about the situation. While I hope my future kids (sons and daughters) will not have to face this, as a 22-year-old, I can't say I'm entirely displeased by significant fractions of my peer group removing themselves from competition.
altoids,
Three comments:
1. Video games are fun. No question about it.
2. I disagree that adventure and competition have disappeared from modern life. It's everywhere. I wonder if people are just trying to avoid the risk of real adventure and competition. What's the risk in a videogame compared to rock climbing or starting a new business?
3. I wonder how video games differ from reading a book? I acknowledge the hand/eye coordination, but as a passtime to avoid the real world, how do they differ? I'd say it may be in the visibility. A reader curls up quietly somewhere. A gamer is bouncing around in his chair screaming at the creen. We see one. We don't see the other.
games can keep a mind active and teach a few skills.
i am 33, i live at home, cant afford to move out, but i am desperate too, i am getting married soon, so i need a place for me and my wonderful woman to be with each other.
to blame it on environmental toxins is a mistake i think, people will be looking for a physical reason, rather that a sociological one.
men are told we are worthless, we see so many stories about women who divorce men after having a kid and leaving the man as a wallet.
no wonder men are disillusioned about life in general, if you get told 24/7 365 that you are somehow less than human, dont you think it would make an affect, we are not motivated as who motivates us.
games are the only thing that keeps our minds working, as we have less chance of getting a job, less chance of meeting a wonderful woman who doesnt just want you for your money. where are the courses for men. and combine that with a housing shortage for men, single women or women with kids, get preferential treatment, so men have to live somewhere, not all men can live on park benches. where are men supposed to go if there are no jobs other than back home.
Mercurior,
1. Some guys might get told 24/7 365 that they are somehow less than human. If so, why do they listen?
2. How do single women or women with kids get preferential housing teratment? Perhaps government subsidized housing gives preference to single women with kids, but who else does?
3. I suggest the 24/7 365 drone is coming from weenies themselves as an excuse not to get off their butts.
4. I doubt a guy living with his parents is much of a target for gold diggers. If he got out and made something of himself, then they might start looking.
I have two sons still living at home, but at their ages, 13 and 17, they're supposed to. Both seem quite motivated but not necessarily in the socially preferred ways. Skateboard, paintball, working on cars don't always lead to academic and career success.
I don't see video games as being as great of a problem as many suggest. They have XBoxes, Playstation, GameBoy's, etc. but go for weeks without playing them. For the first time in several years no one requested any video game related items this past Christmas. Maybe, video game interest has peaked.
As far as toxins go, I really wonder about the ones prescribed by doctors to control the behaviors of boys much of which in the past was acceptable. Of course it may be too much to ask the good Dr. Sax to look at his own profession.
Hi anon:
Later in my post I qualifed my statement by saying "Real-life does not provide venues for the competition boys seek (at least in secondary school)". I agree there is plenty of competition in the professional world, but, as far as gaming is concerned, most boys develop that habit in secondary school, where competition is apparently scarce. (Disclamer: I didn't go to high school in the US, I'm basing this off what friends tell me. As for my school, we had class rankings, 1-500, posted on the wall.)
Perhaps one related issue is that games are arguably the purest form of meritocracy. Any distinction in the game world must be earned. This probably makes it attractive to those who believe they have been dealt a bad hand in real life. So perhaps competition is not the right word, but fairness.
(As to your 1st & 3rd points, I don't see any contradictions with my opinion.)
anonymous 3.06.
why do men listen, well its blasted at them in everything, tv adverts, tv shows, radio shows, magazines, newspapers, you cant get away from it.
i live in the UK and we have government housing, and they put single mothers followed by single women to the head of the queue. and there is a pro family ideal that makes a woman with kids more enticing in the job market so the employers can say look how good i am, i hire single mothers.
so now we are weenies for not sucking it up and allowing people to bully men.
and for number ""4. I doubt a guy living with his parents is much of a target for gold diggers. If he got out and made something of himself, then they might start looking.""
you have answered your own question, why should a man go out, and get a major job,own house etc, when gold diggers are about, when they can sit at home, and not have these women screw the mans wallet.
The politically correct would rather blame the effects of the feminist era on passing commets than take a look at the truth.
The folly of all this is the idea that it will all be solved by some silly little 'social program'. Typical liberal BS: mess up society so that people can't function properly then dole them back their power in little bits... just as long as they act like good little boys.
The most sickening thing about all this is that these are the same people who stay stony silent when its revealed that theres an epidemic of suicide amongst young men. Yet as soon as they hear that young men aren't working and consuming enough they throw a tantrum. The baby-boomers and feminists will truly be looked back upon by future generations as the most amoral, greedy bunch of scum-bags of the millenium.
When you feminise education, take away competition from schools, use 'positive discrimination' to discriminate against white men in the workplace, over-tax us, then make us vulnerable to loosing vast swathes of our life savings/home in divorce do you seriously think young men will be as eager as ever to rush out and get married and get a mortgage at age 21? I mean, what planet are you people living on? Do you still think that its possible for a typical working man to support a wife, large family and large house like he could in the 1950s? Get real.
One minute we're told that we are oppressive patriarchs who try to entrap women into the slavery of marriage, and who do nothing but destroy the environment with our 'progress'. The next minute we're told that we are loosers for not marrying and that we aren't consuming enough!This kind of 'denigrate the person WHATEVER they do' behaviour is the sort of thing that a sociopath or abusive personality inflicts upon others.
What is really driving this whine-fest against young men are two things:
1. Older men being jealous that today's young men are not entrapped by the same social responsibilities as past generations. And women getting bitter that men aren't rushing to support them to stay at home so they can give up work.
and:
2. The fear that the engine of the economy - today's young men - is no longer going to work harder and harder and for longer hours, which is neccessary to fund the retirements of an aging population, and to fund a generation of women who've decided that the workplace isn't the utopia they thought it was, and, if-you-please, can we give up work now and 'retire' to being moms... on your paycheck?
Sorry sister but that era is over. And it was you baby boomers and feminists who killed it. So don't blame us for the effects. The social contracts that held men into being society's workhorses were broken by you long ago, so don't you dare whine at us for not living up to YOUR expectations. Which are actually nothing more than greed-driven shaming tactics. Exactly the same tactics that women and older men have for centuries used to get ordinary men to go off and fight in wars.
Take a running jump, cos this generation of men doesn't care what you think anymore.
"I'm not comfortable with your idea.."
My God, listen to that joker. Is this really the litmus test of truth now: what we are 'comfortable' with?
Is it any wonder that boys don't value spending 7 years at college to get a degree with brain-dead idiots of the intellectual calibre of this guy getting one?
Darren Blacksmith,
I agree with you that some (not all) men feel this way--and they are staging a psychological strike. But my concern as a psychologist who works with men and boys is that by saying essentially "screw you" to society etc. they also lose out themselves.
For example, if they forego college--men will make less money over their lifetime or lack skills they may need later in life. And sure, living in mom and dad's basement sounds fun for awhile, but what about later on? My question is, how can we motivate young men to want to do well for themselves but to also feel they are not getting a "raw deal" by doing so?
"I doubt a guy living with his parents is much of a target for gold diggers. If he got out and made something of himself, then they might start looking."
So all men living in the family home have fewer ambitions, savings and future prospects than their counterparts living in, for instance, rented accomodation?
Do you actually have any solid evidence to back up this astonishing claim?
Helen,
With the greatest respect this is an over-simplification of the issues.
Firstly, its not a 'strike' as a strike implies a temporary, conscious decision to with-hold one's labor in order to achieve a better deal. What is going on with most young men - unlike myself - is NOT conscious, and its not temporary. Its a shift in values. The folly of feminists was to assume that society is a linear system, and that they could tinker around with one thing and nothing else would change. But actually society is incredibly complex and its features are inder-dependant: change one thing and EVERYTHING changes in compensation for it. Men no longer feel the need to act like the 'responsible' workhorses of yesteryear. Many men - probably in particular those raised by single moms - don't even beleive that a child needs a father. Do you really think those men are itching to to take parental responsibility at a young age?
Secondly there is the assumption that you can only have a valid and rewarding career if you work through to the upper levels of today's university system. While this may be true to some extent, there are PLENTY of exceptions. Particularly for those who are entrepreunerially minded or who work in fields such as computing. Many men still value truth enough over short-term material gain and expediency to shun today's politically correct college degrees. In many instances they aren't worth (in future earning potential) half of what they were worth 10 years ago anyway.
These kind of silly approaches to this problem will solve nothing and will only prolong it. Nevertheless I doubt women and older men will stop trying to tell us what we ourselves are thinking.
Darren has a big point--college degrees are increasingly a poor short-term investment. But, college increasingly doesn't teach independence. With grade inflation, a lot of students can spend the vast majority of college socializing, playing video games, and hooking up with members of the opposite sex. What college often doesn't do is foster responsibility. Couple that with the fact that parents often won't just kick their kids out of the house at 18, and why on earth would a 22 year old single guy in a $30K/year job want to move out?
I'm a 23 year old law student, and I'll be finding an apartment in New York as soon as I graduate. But I'll be making $130K/year. If I were making $35K/year, I don't know that I'd be so eager to find an apartment of my own.
Darren and anonymous:
I agree that a college degree is not the only avenue--certainly there are many other ways to make money and get ahead. However, you anonymous, are getting ahead by going to law school and it would be a shame if a man did not go to college simply because he did not want to put up with bullshit--I would rather see the system change to accomodate those men, rather than men just rejecting the system and walking away. Not all men are cut out to work with computers etc. or in a trade. I know plenty that want to be teachers, professors, doctors etc.
Darren,
I hear what you are saying about the shift in values--it makes sense. But do you really think that it is best for a man to turn away from having a family or getting into particular careers because of the garbage that he has been fed by society? I understand that many men no longer want to get married--on a previous marriage thread I had, many men made this perfectly clear. However, isn't the idea here to work for change that will challenge the ideas that society holds about men and to change them? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I hear you saying that men can just opt out of a family or particular careers and that will take care of the problem?
Much of the so-called 'independence' - which now seems to be lauded more in our PC/Feminist culture more than life itself - is actually often merely purchased by accumulating massive debts or (particularly in more socialist countries) at the taxpayer's expense. It also has an effect on the environment, the cost of housing, the general cost of living, the destruction of communities and the growth in loneliness and lack of loving care for the elderly.
Also, the fact is that many of the men who are living in the family home are doing so temporarily in order to build up a fund of savings to purchase their own property without first going into debt renting.
Another aspect that people ignore: my sister and her two best friends (all in their mid-20s) all are living with older boyfriends who own their own houses. Without this these girls would NOT be living in nice 3 and 4 bedroom homes. Yet all these men took until their 30s to be able to afford such properties. So, in such cases, each 'looser' guy who doesn't own his own home until his 30s is actually helping the younger women to leave home earlier. Yet its the men who are shamed and the women who are praised! Yep, they are sooooo independent.
I'd also like to see the proof that men who live in the family home play more video games than those who live in rented accomodation. Bizarre.
"do you really think that it is best for a man to turn away from having a family or getting into particular careers because of the garbage that he has been fed by society?"
Without wishing to sound bland: it depends on the man and it depends on the career.
For example, marriage is now very risky for a man and holds few benefits for him. At the very least I would suggest its FAR more sensible for a man to wait until his 30s before he gets married, when he will have a 'stronger hand of cards' to play, and will know more about himself, who he is compatible with etc. But in reality its still very risky. The culture and the legal-psychological divorce industry now profit to the tune of billions by breaking down marriages, and in particularly by denigrating father's and sucking their wallets dry.
As for careers: would I advise men to avoid careers dealing with children? Yes. With great sadness in my heart. Ditto for many other areas of the modern workplace which have decided that they no longer need the white man around.
As for working for change: Well I do via my website. And have done so for several years. But the forces stacked against us are utterly gargantuan and are NOT going to yield to either reasoned argument nor polite debate. Until there is a revolution all I can do, and advise other men to do, is to navigate their own pathways through life, looking out for themselves.
The bad news is that this grand experiment in fatherlessness is going to result in the most pathological generations ever. The good news is that theres going to be plenty of work for you psychologists!?
Darren,
That is really sad. I don't want more work--I would rather all psychologists and psychiatrists go broke than to have generations of fatherless children who are left to fend for themselves. I think about all of the boys (and girls) who will not have male role models at school to learn from--and who may come to feel that learning is not important to men.
As for marriage, it is probably best for men and women to wait until they have some maturity but I have seen people of 20 who are ready and those who are 50 who are not. I wonder how the men who are advised not to marry or go into their dream career will feel when they are 60 or 70, looking back at their life? The only choices here are not between the gold digger who will take a man to the cleaners and steal his children from him or not to get married at all. I try to teach men that I see how to use their judgement and make good choices. It is possible.
Thanks for your website--I read it often.
@Darren Blacksmith
I agree with all you said in your 5.35 posting and with most of the rest you say later.
I am 22, living with my parents, and I don't play video games.
Altoids,
We have no disagreement on my points 1 & 3. You just prompted some thoughts.
However, I would say competition is everywhere for the high school guy who seeks it out. Video games are just one form of available competition. Even there, he has to show some initiative in seeking out the competition.
I went to a US high school in the Sixties and we were also ranked 1-350 on the wall every quarter. It's a wonderful idea, and it's so simple any school can do it.
The "compelling alternative world" theory of videogame malign effects has a problem: *sports* also offers a compelling alternative world with its own wins and losses, and boys have been playing sports for a long, long time without the devastating effects claimed for video games.
Not to say that videogames couldn't be part of the issue: perhaps there are direct cognitive effects that follow from spending too much time looking a 2-dimensional screens. But that would be a different theory from the one advanced.
Mercurior asked:
"you have answered your own question, why should a man go out, and get a major job,own house etc, when gold diggers are about, when they can sit at home, and not have these women screw the mans wallet."
So, he sits at home and screws with his parents' wallets? What a guy!
Darren,
1. Who says young men have to get married and get a mortgage at age 21? All people are commenting on is why they sponge off their parents and whine when it's mentioned.
2. I doubt you speak for your generation of young men. I have seen far too many who don't fit your mold.
3. I wonder what goes through a 23-year-old's head when he's lounging on his parents' recliner, eating mom's meatloaf, watching the news on their plasma TV and sees men his own age fighting in Iraq? I know what goes through the soldier's head when he our stalwart sitting in the nest: Weenie.
Helen said:
"My question is, how can we motivate young men to want to do well for themselves but to also feel they are not getting a "raw deal" by doing so?"
1. Point out the rewards of doing well for themselves.
2. Stop supporting them.
3. Let Darwinism work.
Darren,
Any guy sponging off Mommy is a weenie. His counterparts taking care of themselves are men. Women are attracted to men, not weenies.
Anonymous 6:18,
Congratulations on the law degree and job. Well done.
The 22-year-old single guy might want to move out for the same reasons you busted your head for three years in law school. It's a path to a better life.
In the early Nineties, law school grads were having a hard time getting hired. Supply and demand. I suddenly saw a spike in smart law school grads applying for work in my firm. I hired some very good people that way. They didn't get their first choice which was a position with a law firm, but they eagerly joined my firm as their second choice. Some of them are still here and doing very well.
The point is that we don't always get to call the shots. A resourceful person assesses the situation and acts accordingly.
And the guy only making $30K? Cash the checks, find a dump, and get a better job.
Darren,
If a guy is shamed it's because of what he has done, not what others do.
darren,
There's nothing at all wrong with a guy waiting until he is in his thirties to marry. But is that a reason to live in the nest when he can take care of himself?
We must run in very different circles. I have run my own business for thirty years and must have missed those gargantuan forces. Maybe if I had paid more attention I could have avoided success.
Am I seriously supposed to feel bad for people who won't get out of their parents' houses because college is too "feminized" for them and society doesn't "value" them enough? News flash: if you mooch around your parents' house and don't contribute anything to society, then you ARE "expendable and worthless" to everyone except maybe your family & close friends. I'm 22 and I work 50-60 hours a week at a stressful & demanding job, have my own place & pay my bills. I don't do it for the "competition", but because I realize that at this age, it's my OWN job to support myself. Someone please explain to me why I should feel sorry for a bunch of whiners who live rent-free & eat homecooked meals everyday while I work my ass off.
David:
I think there is a big difference between sports and video games. I don't think there's any question that performance in sports is both more difficult to acheive and more respected than in video games.
Sports require some level of sociability and gamesmanship, and while it would be nice if online games had these qualities, any player could tell you that they are sadly lacking.
I agree that sports and video games serve the same function - that is, they are outlets for competition and tribalism - but I think it is safe to say that sports are a more constructive pastime.
I think it would be helpful to look at this issue from a different perspective.
Most comments consider at the reasons why young men might be staying home and address whether those reasons make sense. It is certainly important to consider why young men are staying home but, to me, the bigger issue is whether this is good for society. In other words, if we assume that young men are staying home in greater numbers than before and to an older age (and apparently there is some evidence to support this assumption), then the larger question becomes: Is this a bad thing?
One perspective is that fewer young men between 22-34 are the primary breadwinners for themselves and any wives/families. If there are large numbers of young men that fall in this category, then I think it is bad for society as a whole. In essence, it means that the role of primary breadwinner has been transferred from young men to young women or to older people (the young man's parents). We are a traditionally a patriarchal and youth-based society. Changing that dynamic may be good in some ways and bad in others, but my main concern is the unintended consequences that such a profound change will likely generate.
DRJ,
One change we might see is an excess of unmarried women. I doubt many women are interested in a guy who still lives in the nest. As the women progress in life, they might not like the prospect of marrying down to the level of a nester, and may remain single.
Another change may be that Boomers will push retirement further back as employers would rather keep them than hire unmotivated and irresponsible younger nesters.
We could also see men who do support themselves rise more rapidly as the nesters carry around more and more reasons to be victims.
Anonymous @ 10:35:
You make some good points. I had not thought of these aspects but they make sense. In fact, aren't we already seeing more unmarried women, older people pushing back retirement, and a small but upwardly mobile group of career men?
Re: Video games.
My sons love video games and I think they are fun, although they should be age appropriate. I'm also leary of online gaming for privacy and other reasons.
However, here's an example of gaming we can all support.
I'm not sure why, but the link in my last comment did not work. Here it is in "long-hand":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060402/hl_nm/media_videogame_cancer_dc
Okay, the link still doesn't work so I give up. It was an article about the use of video games in treating cancer.
Helen--
I was anonymous 6:18. You said, "Not all men are cut out to work with computers etc. or in a trade. I know plenty that want to be teachers, professors, doctors etc." The thing is, there are even more who don't have a real profession in mind as we think about it. Plenty of people with college degrees end up in random retail jobs or lower to middle management. A large number of my friends from college went into "consulting." But we were at an Ivy and could do that. I doubt there are many men who feel a calling towards a profession and don't go for it, but the ones who don't have any such directed drive don't have a good reason to go to college. And, once they graduate, they still don't have a good reason to leave home.
Anonymous 8:32--thank you. But I don't have the degree yet, I'm still in law school. But I didn't go because I wanted a better life, but because I need the sort of challenge that law school provides. Even if law jobs were paying $35K/year, I'd probably have still gone. But I'd also probably end up living at home for a few years, like I will this summer. It's important to distinguish the "living at home for the cost" types from the complete slacker types. I'm not sure the surveys mentioned do that.
I lived in and out of my parents' home and cheap rentals until about the age of 26 (although I'm much older now). I think there's a lot more to this than just feminism. Young male despondancy and confusion is caused by a broad collapse of traditional morals.
The values of working, saving, living morally, contributing to the community, respecting authority (legal and moral), marrying, supporting a family and such are attacked by a whole range of malign philosophies from feminism, socialism, greenism etc. on the left to market-forces ('just die, you weenie') social darwinism and drugs-and-porn-and-anything-goes-libertarianism on the right.
It's obnoxious to write these young guys off as 'weenies' or losers. They're probably mostly young men who want to do the right thing, but can't work out what 'the right thing' is or if such a thing even exists.
Most lost young guys do eventually learn something approximating traditional morals on their own, but the fact that they have to (on their own I mean) is a sad reflection on the rest of us, whether Left or Right.
To the man who said men in the family home should be ashamed because there are other men in Iraq:
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Equally, I am not particularly impressed by arguments which essentially boil down to: "You are a penis".
The use of shaming tactics and degrading language has historically been part of the armory of techniques for breaking down a man's independent will and turning him into a soldier. Interestingly a lot of the language used is often designed to be sexually shocking/shaming, and in particular usually revolves around anal subjects: "You are a peice of sh*t", "You are an a$$hole", "You are in deep sh*t/ a world of sh*t/ the sh*t has hit the fan.", "Unless you do X, I will DUMP on you from a great height." And so on.
Kidnappers and interogators use the same technique. The goal here, of course, is to break the man's bonds to his family and get him to 'imprint' on the new heirarchy. The anal theme seems to hark back to our earlier mammalian ancestry, as most mammals establish dominance and territory through their anal excretions.
The admonition 'take it like a man' is a weaker version of this, and tends to be used whenever people are trying to get a man to do something against his best interests.
Interesting also that Dr Sax should misuse his imprimateur of scientific authority to project his political beliefs on how families should live. Hes like an old woman who can't help but push her nose into other people's private business. Maybe Dr Sax should also set up a silly website to campaign against gays living together. Actually maybe he should just write a manual to inform us how and where we should all live. Hell, he'd probably even get his own slot on the Orca Whingefry show!
This is just another exercise in stirring up hatred against young men. Feminist groups have been doing it for years by painting inaccurate pictures of the average man as abusive and violent. These feeds women's imaginations and fears until they start looking at men and thinking "Damn I bet he would rape me given half a chance." Or, "I bet he loves to get home in the evening and looks at child porn online."
This current version of man-bashing is aimed at getting hard-working older men to start imagining that all the younger men are laying at home doing drugs all day, never lifting a finger to do any work, stealing their parents money etc. They are taking an EXTREME example and painting a whole group in that image.
What this all boils down to is that society DOES NOT value the average man as a Human being in and of himself. Never has. To society as a whole, a young man's life only has value to the extent that he is an economic production unit, or cannon fodder for war. A young woman is valued for herself, her soul or whatever. A young man is not. And THAT is why you hear stony silence when men are killing themselves or are facing injustices, yet you hear plenty of noise as soon as men are not living up to their functions as money-makers or soldiers.
most men want to get their own place, but they cant for one reason or another, like money, men have a tendency to plan i need x amount for a house, i need this, but if there is no opportunity to save, or it takes longer, then isnt that good.
dazed and the idea that a man at home with his parents is somehow a leech, how do you know he doesnt do volunteer work for a charity, how do you know he doesnt run websites, you are making assumptions. yes there are slackers, just like there are slacker women, but women have better time getting out into the housing markets.
exactly KIP, therese been a decay in mens lives, caused by many different things, i think most of it boils down to respect. these groups dont respect the problems that men have, whether its educationally, employment wise, even legally, and sociologically.
everything builds up in young men, as one person said on a previous post, the lack of education thats a percentage, then legal resources, how a woman can change her mind the next day, next week after consenting to having sex, and then you are a rapist.
most of these Men have no self respect because no one has told them, that they arent the only ones, and that its ok. even the article about dr sax, says men are unmotivated and that its somehow their fault. when society seems to bully men more than women.
games are a reason to keep going, i have created spread sheets for a game i play, its a trading game, it helps me work out relationships and finances in the game which can be used in the real world, its also taught me how to use excel, due to this one game. so games can be useful, they can create critical thinking, and some will get rid of the agression men feel.
I am surprise that several other causes could exist for the increase:
1. Is the percentage of 20 something men living at home different for the various ethnic groups? Could this just be an effect of an increasing perentage of young men being Hispanic or Asian? Does the normal family structure of different ethnic groups affect the overall statistic? Most of the above comments seem to be from the POV of white, upper middle class family with two parents.
2. Could this be an effect of what I would call the "Little League" effect in which boys more than girls learn that is they are not really good at something that they are suppose to quit doing it?
3. Could this be an effect of increasing divorce? Do more sons live with a divorced mother insread of both parents?
Divorce, with it's absurb routine kidnapping of young boy's and exile of their fathers, is a HUGE part of the problem, as well as other problems. One only needs to look at the corrlation between crime and fatherless households (or, put another way, the enormous correlation between crime and female-headed households) to understand this. And yet, a woman can routinely get custody, nearly every time she wants it.
Add that to a mass media that constantly proclaims what prescious little angels girls are (except when they are exercising a little kick-ass grrrrl! power), but that boys are stupid (so throw rocks at them), who's only role is to grow up to be a child-support wallet.
We have, in short, become a feminized culture. Fewer strong men are created. The ones who are wisely want very little to do with women, except as an occasional physical release. In 20 years, the story will be "How come few of these empowered kick-ass grrrls we've spent a fortune creating can find anyone who wants to marry them?". By then, virtual reality and cloning (coupled with avaricious divorce and family custody laws) may well have made marriage a thing of the past.
And maybe that's not such a bad thing. Nature taking it's course. Forced equality doesn't work. You don't see it in nature. Study how chimps and babboons and other species organize and socialize. I'm not aware of the male of any primate species who routinely submits to the will of the female of his species; it isn't natural. But we humans like to pretend it is.
Mercurior.
1. I agree most men want a place of their own, and most get it. First they get a dump, then a nicer place, etc. First they have to get off the family dole. Most are not on the dole. The slackers are.
2. What does doing volunteer work or running a website have to do with a young man taking care of himself. Are we supposed to care he uses his parents wallet to subsidize his website?
3. If a man has no self respect, why on earth would you expect others to respect him?
4. Games are a reason to keep going? They teach finance? Ever thought of getting a job where you actually play in the real world of finance with a computer? Banks, trading companies, hedge funds, oil companies, grain elevators - people in these industries all use computers to execute market strategies and tactics. Why use a simulation when the real thing is available? Keep track of real profit and loss and risk in the real world, not in the basement.
This anecdote may be relevant to the whole videogames discussion..A couple of years ago, I was talking with a flight instructor who was teaching in the new Cessnas, which have large video screens for the display of GPS and other information. He remarked that many students have great difficulty in keeping their eyes off the screen and out the window where they belong.
Is there something about the nature of the image on a screen that makes it seem more "real" than reality itself?
To anonymous 9:56
I think you have 3 backwards: If others don't respect some man, why would he respect himself? For that matter, what is "self-respect" anyway? It seems like one of those phrases, like self-esteem, that people throw around almost entirely to manipulate others. (I've managed to stop laughing when a woman says that she just wants a man who "respects women" or "knows how to treat a woman".) It is only when psychologists want to actually measure it that it has to be well-defined, both theoretically and operationally.
If a man succeeds financially, it is very likely his success will be at least partly attributed to his persecution of women. Furthermore, men are sometime/often motivated to succeed financially so that they can attract women. Also, given the current laws surrounding paternity fraud and choice for women but not men, why would a man want to attract a woman? Both of these strike me as very powerful disincentives for men to have and demonstrate ambition.
Darren,
Here's what I said about slackers and Iraq:
"I wonder what goes through a 23-year-old's head when he's lounging on his parents' recliner, eating mom's meatloaf, watching the news on their plasma TV and sees men his own age fighting in Iraq?"
I didn't say the slacker should be ashamed because other men are in Iraq. I asked what the slacker thought about it. Why do you suggest shame is appropriate? I agree with you, but wonder why shame was your first response. You said it, not me.
I second Kip's post at 2:44 AM.
There's nothing inappropriate about shame. Society could use a lot more shame. Of course, shame doesn't feel good, and we all know that to the new age ninnies, feeling good is everything.
Mercurior, the excuses are tiresome and ridiculous. There are men who hear all the things you do, who make something of themselves. If they can, so can you.
Those who wonder why video games are so attractive and more destructive to ambition than reading, sports, etc. Games are image based, reading is word based. Verbal thinking is more useful in the real world. As for sports, real competition involves sweat and sometimes pain. Video games are fantasy land - you can be killed over and over - failure has no real consequences. It's risk-free.
Anonymous,
No you didn't use the word 'Shame' but it seemed pretty likely that was the emotion you were trying to provoke from that strange, apples to oranges comparison.
You seem to be acting in a sneeky way, posting anonymously and making sideways, passive-aggressive attacks. I prefer it when people who are more up-front and direct.
At the end of the day most young men no longer care what people like those posting here think about them. The boys today are growing up with no Daddies, and constant sexual and emotional insults being thrown their way. They are soon going to develop a very thick-skin and a 'dont-give-a-f*ck' attitude.
Therefore all your bashing, trashing, shaming etc is just hot air and will come to nothing, change nothing and be forgotten within days. Just like the arrogant proclaimations of that permatanned pop-psychologist guy who started it all.
Well, let's not forget that some point the kid hanging around the nest might come in handy for taking care of the folks when they're too old to take care of themselves.
Which brings us to another syndrome: "I'm living at home, *taking care* of my mom , spending her social security and I sure hope I inherit the house" syndrome.
I think Dr Sax may be referring to reports that environmental toxins that mimic estrogen may affect human health. In women these toxins are sometimes blamed for breast cancer. Maybe Dr Sax thinks that these psuedo-estrogens adversely affect male development and behaviour.
The chemicals in question are a byproduct of plastics manufacturing. I have no idea if this theory has any scientific validity. Here's a link to a google search on the subject:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=environment+toxins+plastics+estrogen&btnG=Search
Has anyone made this point yet? (haven't read the whole thread yet) I know two families that have adult sons living at home. In both cases the sons are financially helping out the parents.
I doubt these are isolated instances. I worry that my own son will worry about me taking care of myself after he's grown and gone. He's 17, and currently he does all the heavy lifting at my house. Carries in heavy bags of dog food, mows the lawn. He even fixed the roof when it leaked this winter. I think I'll try to subtly let him know that when he is grown I'll be fine without him.
Maybe some of the men living at home are sons of single mothers, and would feel like they were abandoning their mothers if they moved out? Just a thought.
I see a LOT of boys in my practice, because I am a man and a psychologist. The boys and the mom's want them to have a relationship with an adult man. Dad is out of the family and out of the child's life. It is SO sad.
My father died almost a year ago and it still brings a tear to my eye to write this. So much of my life is an extension of my relationship with my father. It is a good thing.
Blaming video games is popular, but my opinion is that they are at worst parasitic. They work with those of us who have ADD. But gaming is not competitive with fathering. Well, with being a son. A father can play video games WITH their children. I play Everquest II with my daughter. We work together or we die! Sometimes I goof up so much that we die, sometimes she does. We are in the same room, we have a ball. She also plays gameboy by herself some time, then I break in and ask "Whatcha doing?"
I am not qualifies to comment on toxins, but much of my job revolves around loss of fathers. It is SO SAD. And it hurts more than we imagine.
Trey
Bobh,
Perhaps a guy who has no self respect is one who has no ambition and can't think of any reason to have it.
Dweeb,
I agree.
However, regarding video games, I read a piece recently about the new remote control machine guns mounted on top of Humvees in Iraq.
The gunner usually is up top behind the gun. This puts him in a spot where he can fire effectively, but he is also a good target.
They have now installed remote guns where the gunner sits in the vehicle and has a video screen showing what is outside. He uses this just like a video game.
Maybe it's the meeting of the virtual and the real.
Trey,
Thanks for your input. Fathers are so very important, not just to children, but to adults--both men and women. My father died a few years ago and there is not a day that goes by that I do not think of him and all of the discussions we had. I cannot imagine being a boy and not having this. It must be very painful--I see it in the faces of my male patients, most of whom have no dad. However, by the time they get to me, the lack of a father to teach boundaries is apparent and often, the young man is lost.
I have seen video games and the internet work wonders with some of the boys I have. They are not the evil that many people make them out to be.
Darren,
I agree the slackers have a very thick-skin and a 'dont-give-a-f*ck' attitude. That's why they are slackers, And that's why I'll hire an ambitious and innovative woman any day of the week over a slacker who doesn't give a damn.
I think that the while the "living at home" scale doesn't account for people who are doing it temporarily, working towards some goal, it also doesn't account for people like me. I'm 24, living alone, working a more or less 9-5/40-per-week job, but otherwise fit the the slacker portayed here.
I play games too much, but I have friends in similar situations who simply party too much instead; I think heavy gaming (as opposed to wasting time other ways) is more indicative of less of a propensity for spending time with people. I also have little aspiration or motivation, and have generally regarded it as irresponsiblity or "weakness of character". I think this apathy (whether it's an attitude, emotional problem, bad choice, or whatever) is much nearer to the core of the issue than where you live, pasttimes, etc.
Depending on the proclivities of the individual affected, this social detachment has differing results; many will indulge more destructive habits such as petty crime, drug use/distribution, and so on. The cumulative effect on society is the same - more single guys either contributing marginally or actively harming others.
knightwatch,
Nobody is asking you to pay the culture back. They just wonder why you let Mommy and Daddy continue to pay for your consumption of that culture.
I think folks would have much more respect for the guy who turns his back on the culture and goes out in the north woods and lives off the land in a teepee.
But a slacker who whines about rules, roles, and relationships, and how he is above all that? And then camps out with Mommy and Daddy and consumes the benefits of their productive work?
That's a weenie.
anonymous 956
first you are missing the point, in the UK a 3 room place thats a bedroom/kitchen and bathroom, costs about $200,000 now thats a hell of a lot of money.
2 NOT all people who live at home are slackers, they keep active, while looking for work, they dont all just sit there with thumbs in their ears and hand down their trousers watching tv. they are actually do things online.
3 You missed the point again. since i have been called a weenie, a loser, and men in general are called rapists, i have little self respect , luckily my mother knows how hard it is in the real world to get work, and she has seen some really money grabbing women, and she has told me avoid those types. they are no good.
4 yes, games are a reason to keep going, if men had nothing they would kill themselves even more that they do now. they give you abilities and keep you skills up to date, some games can, god games for example they can teach you interactions between things. so these men who arent motivated who probably dont have the higher qualifications as the courses are becoming a feminised brainwashing system, to go into these areas of work which they themselves are becoming infested with women and women only hiring, to break the glass ceilings, etc.. men havent got anywhere to go, apart from the army, but thats what a lot of feminists want, men to go out and die, and leave the women to run the world.
anonymous 3.29
so as men all men are supposed to suck it up then or would it be easier if these weenies kill themselves. since they are slackers and lazy and dont contribute to society (as far as you see)
Anonymous 3:24:
Can you elaborate on the apathy issue? What do you think the apathy is about? People? You mentioned social detachment. Do you think men who live at home,in part, do so because they are detached from others? Why so? Anger, disappointment? You can answer here or email me at
violentkids@hotmail.com
Mercurior,
1. When I lived in London I rented a flat. I didn't have to buy one. The further out one goes from central London, the cheaper they get. So, what's all this about $200,000 for a three room place? What's a one room flat rent for? All the guys in the UK are still in the nest?
2. Nice to know the slackers keep busy on the internet. So what?
3. I advise all young men to make their own decisions, regardless of what their mothers think. Why on earth do you care what names people call you?
4. Are the welding courses in the UK feminized?
There are thousands of things for young men to do. However, for those who are limited to seeing only the army or video games, I recommend they run, walk, or crawl as fast as they can for the recruiting station.
Anonymous 3:24,
I have a suggestion.
Quit the job. Give up the apartment. Sell all your stuff. Buy a backpack. Get a sleeping bag. Drive, hitchhike, or take a bus up the Alaska highway.
When you get there, follow your nose. There are always jobs available. Amazing experiences will follow.
Videogames:
Sax is making the correlation/causation mistake. He's a real moron. Socially and financially unsuccessful young men have free time to kill, and videogames are an inexpensive and mentally engaging way to kill it. As another commenter pointed out, a generation ago the same person might have passed the time reading a book instead. Video games don't CAUSE young men to be unsuccessful, they are a SYMPTOM.
Weenies and social class:
This is a social class issues. People from lower class backgrounds want to convince themselves that their way (joining the Marines) is superior. Upper middle class kids have not been socialized to think that the Marines are something they should be a part of.
Fixating on the worst case
People are fixating on the worst case stereotypical loser guy, and not really examining what the typical young man who lives with his parents is like. I suspect that most of them are working at jobs which don't pay enough money to afford a place as nice as they get for free, or are students.
how long ago was it since you lived in london., there is RAMPANT house inflation here.
have you seen the prices in england, renting a place costs about £400-£600 a month, the house opposite mums is worth nearly £200,000 yes pounds.
but since men are being penalised in GETTING jobs, how can a MAN afford houses at that price.
so you want all slackers to basically either sit there an do bugger all, which you say is all they should do.
look anonymous, if you get told your a loser for 20 odd years, that your a weenie, that you are worth not even worth spit. then dont you think that will affect men. if you dont then you are a idiot.
so i should go and do welding then, is that my only option. dear god, if you read the posts here they mention men should go into the army. if they cant find a job. is that all men are to you, fodder for stupid petty wars, or welders.
anonymous 4.10. you are an idiot (sounds like you could be a woman, or a feminised man)
the 3 room flat, was just that 3 rooms, thats all. a bedroom and kitchen and a bathroom. 3 rooms.
NOT a 3 bed flat. just 3 rooms. 1 just one bedroom, one bathroom and one kitchen sometimes thats just a microwave oven in the main room. anonymous please read it.
Between the ages of 22 and 34, I spend 3 years and 6 months living with my parents. That's 29% of the 12 year period, which makes me very typical apparently, because we are told that one third of men in that age range live with their parents.
So what's my story? I graduated from college (where I had the fortune to attend out of town), and I didn't have a job, so guess where I lived? With mom and dad. When I finally found a job, combined with student loans and other debts, I couldn't afford to live anywhere in New York City. Then the job only lasted 5 months, and I was unemploye, and then I found another crappy job.
I had many friends also living with their parents. It was pretty normal.
My parents did absolutely nothing to encourage me to move out. I think just the opposite. Were they bad parents because of this? Probably, but unfortunately we don't get to choose our parents, they choose us, and even when they are wrong about stuff they exert a vast influence over us. They also didn't have much money and I think that a lot of young people in New York City have their parents give them financial help in order to live away from home.
Believe me, I was aware of the stigma of living at home. Two years of that and I went off to graduate school in another state. This was a bad decision, I think I primarily went there because I wanted so badly to get away from my parents. But then I graduated and I found a crappy job in New York City and yes it paid more than the pre-graduate school job but I had twice as many student loans to pay, so guess where I lived: with my parents. After a year and three months I moved away from New York City to a place with cheap housing, and never returned.
I'm pretty sure that the reason people live at home is mostly because they can't afford to live elsewhere. I'm sure it varies by state. In "red states" where housing is cheap, less people have to live with their parents.
I find the comments made by Anonymous 9.56 very disturbing. Firstly they are commenting on matters they know nothing about, they do not live in the UK and most certainly do not know the property prices in London or indeed in the North of England.
$200.000 will just about get you a one car garage in London these days never mind anywhere to live.
Secondly, they know nothing about the employment situation where in most offices they workforce has been completely overtaken by the women in the country.
Thirdly, what doesn't surprise me is the comment that males should either find something to do and classifies people they don't know in situations they don't understand to go and join the Army. This is atypical American attitude which I have come across for some time that they use the Army as a job not understanding that when problems crop up they are expected to carry out what the Army is really about.
I would never say that it is easy to get into the British Army either as they have very strict vetting procedures.
As for welding courses being feminised, that is correct they are taking over all the former male orientated jobs as well as their own. this is fact not fiction.
HalfSigma,
1. If financially unsuccessful young men have free time to kill, maybe they could get a job so they won't be financially unsuccessful.
2. Joining the Marines is superior only when we know to what it is being compared. When compared to staying on the family dole, it is superior. The lowest class cannot pass the aptitude tests the Marines demand. The plurality of Marine recruits come from the second income quintile.
3. I wouldn't at all be surprised guys who live with their parents can't afford the standards their parents have earned. So what?
Mercurior,
Young guys don't have to buy a house. They can rent and share. Lots do it in the UK. The whole country isn't on the family dole.
Anyone who has been told he is a loser for 20 years might take a look at himself and determine if he is a loser. If he is, then he should fugure out how he can be more than a loser. If he isn't then who cares what people call him. Weenies don't do either.
You told us courses had been feminized. If welding has not been feminized, then I bet we can find lots more that are also free from feminization.
What's wrong with being a welder? Think about that the next time you drive over a bridge. They also make good money and can support themselves and others.
An idiot is a step up from a weenie.
Mercurior,
Three rooms is two more than a guy needs.
Hoof-in -mouth,
I agree the slackers are waiting, and waiting, and waiting.....
Anonymous 5;25,
Are you telling us the Brits have managed to feminize welding? What are the characteristics of a feminized spot weld?
Anonymous 5:25<
Americans do indeed understand the military goes to war. I bet the Brits know that, too.
You will hear Americans saying the military offers the chance to get an education because so many have taken advantage of it.
I'm glad to hear the British army is selective. That's probably why it is so good. They probably don't have many slackers in the ranks.
Here's my take:
(a) The demographic "teenager" was invented, largely for marketing purposes. But this demographic was created sloppily. A teenager was no longer a child or adult, and could not earn societal approval, esteem, and value in the roles of child or adult. But adults forgot to tell teenagers how to earn these things (except in a few unreasonable or impractical ways). Thus teenagers invented their own ways to gain approval, esteem, and value -- in their own eyes, since no one else was dispensing these qualities.
(b) The first generations of teenagers grew up and became "adults", since their identity as "teenager" was never very solid. They wanted to fit in to society. Being a teenage outcast from societal norms and values was a temporary aberation in their psyche.
(c) Now we are seeing generations of teenagers reaching their 20s for whom their teenage years were their most defining. They are USED TO inventing their own ways to gain approval, esteem, and value. They assume that society's current offers that they can fit in as adults are, as offers, as empty as the past promises of "A students are happiest and always get into college", "colleges want Eagle scouts", "what? don't you want to go to college? all college graudates get good jobs!", etc.
The problem is not that these people "lost" in the years between teenager and adult are unmotivated, it's that they lack or distrust any worthy motivations.
They either don't have good "role models" (people/examples) for starting a business, working their way up the corporate ladder, having a happy marriage, have a nice house, etc. -- or they do but don't trust these will be valuable accomplishments in 10 years. They seed trends that America will become very anti-business, businesses will discard their last remnants of loyalty to employees, marriage will become an antique artifact of certain religous groups, the government will increasingly seize private land.
Mercurior,
Feminized men don't hitchhike to Alaska. They prefer to whine.
David,
And those who don't buy that shall inherit the earth. It's theirs for the taking. Now that's an opportunity.
What's wrong with us all that we are so sure these young guys are living their lives all wrong? Assuming the overwhelming majority are not deranged shut-in misanthropes (a safe assumption), using classic vices and virtues as a yardstick, these guys are not off the rails.
Ambition is a neutral characteristic - it can be either good or bad. However, as a generalisation, if a young man just wants to get by and live a modest, predictable, low stress life, as long as he's not slothful, he's definitely a more virtuous person than the classic Nietzchian superman social darwinist type full of pride and scorn.
Being attached to your parents is also a definite virtue, and spending adulthood in immediate proximity to your parents has been quite natural in all ages except our own. Many parents like having their kids around. I live 1000 miles from mine, and I don't feel the better for it. My two sisters both moved to the small town where my parents live to be closer to them, accepting the limited career prospects that entailed, and I'll readily admit they are better daughters to Mum and Dad than I am a son.
If you feel like you don't fit in, sometimes it's the world you don't fit into that has the problem.
Remember, in the Bible (and being world's greastest source of moral and ethical wisdom is one of the least of that fine book's qualities) the guy who stays home is the good son.
Yes, preach the word, Sister Helen!
Now, can I get a little of this sympathy some of you seem so full of?
My grandmother was not able to vote for some period of time though all men (including former slaves) could. She was, then, in essence, less than a slave in the eyes of the government. How do you think that made her feel? What effect do you think that had on her and her attitudes? She and her mother were considered chattel.
My mother's occupational choices were seriously limited. School teacher, nurse, or secretary basically. In fact, even I was led to believe in school as a child that these essentially were my options. How do you reckon that made us feel?
As a lawyer, there are many who do not prefer to hire a female. They think we are not constitutionally and emotionally strong enough. To be certain, other lawyers have treated me with disdain ("the little girl lawyer") and word has gotten back to me about judges commenting on my physique. If I am given good treatment, I suspect it is because of my tits, not out of any respect.
I've had former bosses fondle me and try to discuss my sex life. I didn't do anything about it. I tried to be cool. But eventually the one wouldn't take "no" for an answer and I had to leave, which of course put me in a bind.
There is no question that, although most women work outside the home, they still handle more than their fair share of the housework and child rearing. What effect do you think that has on women and their attitude toward men?
Everyone feels free to comment on the appearance of a woman. And furthermore, it's always relevant. Female Senator, Secretary of State, First Lady? Nevermind the accomplishment. Is she pretty? Because that is our main value, let's face it. If you weren't so beautiful,Helen, I'm not sure you'd have so many hits honestly. How do you think that makes me feel? What will happen to me when I'm older and my figure disappears?
I grew up without a father. He was a useless, alcoholic bum. And this story is true for most of my friends, male and female. The fathers were either abusive, alcoholic, disinterested and uninvolved, or completely absent.
And men feel bad because they're treated like wallets? Women are treated like either semen-receptacles or maids. Think that might affect our mindset too?
I like men, I really do. I prefer them in fact, on a personal level--relate to their way of thinking and their interests more. And they like me too. Almost all of my friends are men.
But I just can't tolerate this sob story shit. Things are tough all over. If men have it so bad (and I affirmatively deny that they do), the shit ain't lasted nearly as long as what women suffered. That doesn't mean it's ok. It just means, you shouldn't expect a whole lot of sympathy. You know, remove the mote from your own eye and shit. Men, heal the sickness within your own gender and set a good example.
Yes, sometimes you have to pay your dues. Sometimes, you have to make peace with your spouse or a parent, even if the whole damn thing was their fault to begin with. Do you just want to be right or do you want real progress?
Oh, and another thing...
Although we supposedly invaded Iraq to liberate the people, we think nothing of the treatment of millions of Muslim women around the world, who are treated worse than dogs. I'll support your war, Mr. Bush, if you will invade every other country that permits such treatment.
yes helen is pretty, but what has that got to do with someones worth, she writes good posts, intelligent, clever posts. which have an effect. look at us we are talking about it. i am engaged to a beautiful woman, not just coz she looks it, but because of who she is her intelligence.
anonymous 12.58
you are totally brainwashed by the feminist organisations. is it right that men are bullied as that is what it is, by government laws and society in general . more boys kill themselves than women, do they deserve that since they had a patriarchy (that never existed). so is it right that when men are trying to be treated equally thats somehow wrong. try reversing your thinking, put woman instead of a man, or a man instead of a woman and see how you feel.
Anonymous 12:58:
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Knightwatch,
That was one of the most moving whines I have ever encountered. I think it could be used as a testimonial to show high school kids what they could become if they aren't weaned at an early age.
KnightWatch: "Very seldom do any of these married newlyweds risk getting their feet wet without the help of mommy and daddy's purse strings."
This is a very good point. At the very least, mommy and daddy pay for the wedding, where the couple then receive cash gifts that don't cover the cost of the reception, so the net effect of the wedding is a cash transfer from parents to children.
I remember reading once that a large percentage of first time homebuyers had help from parents to pay the down payment.
The point here is that in addition to the one third of young men living at home, a large percentage of people not living at home, married people included, are also mooching off of their parents. So people shouldn't be so quick to judge those who do live with them, because those who don't are often mooching to a much greater extent.
Kip said...
What's wrong with us all that we are so sure these young guys are living their lives all wrong?
Hmmm, maybe it seems wrong because unmarried women were the ones who lived at home in previous generations. In my family (I am 46) unmarried aunts stayed at home while my father and uncle got out at the first opportunity. Perhaps our discomfort with unmarried post-college guys living at home is because in our parnt's generation this was a femal pattern. I believe that unconscious sexism has at least something to do with our discomfort.
Trey
knightwatch,
As a master, I look out for those who opt for slavery.
Tmink,
In the generations when women lived at home until marriage, perhaps they were waiting for a husband to support them. This is the same type of dependency we see in the guys who can't stop living off their parents. These young men have opted for the dependency women have shaken off. Then they whine because women are becoming more independent while they are still living in the basement.
Independent minded men and women will always out perform the slackers. And then the slackers will whine about it.
Between Mercurior, Knightwatch, and Hoof_in_mouth, I think I've heard enough crybaby whining to last a year:
Here it is -- I'm supposed to feel obligation and duty to repay our culture back when my culture hasn't done a damn thing but kick me on the curb and say "I'm not good enough."
Hasn't done a thing? I just love your contempt for all those who actually strive to provide your comfy little world. So, I suppose you'll be wanting to give back the vaccines, dentistry, antibiotics, electricity, roads, flush toilets, microwave ovens, police and fire protection, housing, hygeine products, and, of course, your only real friend in the world, your precious videogame console.
Also, that whole stock market construct you depend upon for a living.
Then we'll be glad to strip you to a loincloth and drop you in a rain forest somewhere, where you can completely free yourself of the detritus of that pesky old social contract. Good luck figuring out how to feed yourself, let alone getting sticks and rocks to let you play Halo 3.
You missed the point again. since i have been called a weenie, a loser, and men in general are called rapists, i have little self respect
Let me state this on the level you're operating at: Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names will never hurt you.
News flash: you have to get self respect the old fashioned way, you earn it.
yes, games are a reason to keep going, if men had nothing they would kill themselves even more that they do now.they give you abilities and keep you skills up to date,
Anyone remember the old Commodore computer commercials where some gaming twit is in a job interview and the interviewer, looking over the resume, says "So I see here you shot down 1500 aliens from the planet 'Mongo'?"
If that's your idea of how to develop sellable skills, no wonder you're in your present situation.
look anonymous, if you get told your a loser for 20 odd years, that your a weenie, that you are worth not even worth spit. then dont you think that will affect men.
Translation: "Waaahhh! they called me names!!! I'm gonna spend my life pouting!"
No, it won't affect real MEN; it will affect arrested adolescents who lack character.
They may be slackers or rebels, or not, but most are waiting for an achievable vision of a better life than the one they have.
And while they sit waiting, others are getting off their keesters and going out SEEKING it.
It's no longer whining when you're responding to a question!
Responsive whining is whining nonetheless.
Why do I keep hearing a song from "West Side Story?"
"Dear Officer Krupke, we're misunderstood......"
What's wrong with us all that we are so sure these young guys are living their lives all wrong?
Maybe because they're societal parasites?
If you feel like you don't fit in, sometimes it's the world you don't fit into that has the problem.
Of course, because everything revolves around you.
Yeah, moral relativism just relieves you of all the hard thinking.
If the pool of competent and confident men is shrinking, then we are lucky the pool of competent and confident women is increasing.
I don't know, as much as I hate to say it, my own wife and many women in my neighborhood basically live the same lives these young men do. They just have social approval to do it.
I mean, we have one child and the others in my neighborhood have either one or two. I do basically half the childcare and housework, but also provide nearly all the family income.
My wife does the other half of housework and child rearing, but over the years, all of her income, save a token $400/month or so, goes completely toward herself.
She is, in effect, living in the same sort of way that any slacker living with their parents is. Sure she goes to work and all, but she feels no financial pressure or economic responsibility in her life.
hoof-in-mouth wrote:
"I humbly suggest that the one thing a man needs is for someone else to need him."
Could be. People look to the competent if they are in need. People need a reason to think someone can meet their needs. But who needs a weenie who can't stand on his own two feet?
i have a question for dweebs and the anoymous.. would you be happy to see all men living at home that you term slackers or weenies to die.
are they worth nothing, because of situations YOU dont know about, in places you HAVENT been.
yare you really saying that you must be productive little drones, and as soon as you are unable for whatever reason, whether depression, or any other reason for them to be home like high unemployment in their home towns. they deserve to die. what about the retired they dont produce anything, are they weenies, they sit at home all day. are they expendable too.
Anonymous 3:45
1. I have no desire for weenies to die. What prompts that suggestion?
2. You are correct that I have not had the experiences of the weenies. Perhaps I could have had their experience, but I chose another path.
3. Most productive people are not drones. Why do you suggest productivity equates to being a drone?
4. If someone can't find a job in the place they live, they can go somewhere else.
5. I note much recent public discussion of illegal immigrants. They leave their homes in Mexico, cross the border at night, make their way to US cities, and get minimum wage jobs. And then they work hard and try to improve their lot. They have many barriers to full participation in the economy. However, they are men and definitely not weenies.
Whose business is it, really, of someone lives at home? It's between that person, and their parents. Live and let live; it doesn't affect you.
Anonymous 5:33,
Nobody is interfering with the guys who choose to remain dependent on their parents. They are obviously free to do so. The rest of us are also free to discuss what we observe in society, just like you are free to comment on our discussion.
The poor, poor Mexicans again. A lot of them cross just to get on US assistance. A lot of the women purposely cross just when they're about to give birth, to stay in the country cos they give birth in the US, and get on the dole. The poor, poor Mexicans thumb their noses at US culture, won't learn the language, and expect the country to change for THEM.
since these slackers and weenies are just sitting there lazing away according to you, and not doing anything constructive. maybe they cant afford to move 100 miles, or afford to run a car.. arent they a drain on society. other anonymous words, wouldnt you be better off with out them. maybe you are happy to see so many young men killing themselves mentioned in a previous post. as they must be slackers since they dont have a job.
all this rubbish about slackers, and weenies. thats another way of saying i am looking down on them, they are somehow less than human, less deserving. how do you know these so called slackers dont have depression, you dont, you know NOTHING about them at all. so who are you to judge who is a slacker or a weenie unless you have lived their lives.
Anonymous 5:38,
I agree the Mexicans who come here are poor. However, they do work hard. I suspect the country will be influenced by them just as other immigrant groups have influenced the society. I also think they will have far more beneficial influence than the guys on mom's dole.
I wonder how a guy who claims he can't compete against a woman thinks he can ever compete against a Mexican man who is ready and willing to work hard.
You know, my grandpa didn't have the luxury to let depression drive him into not supporting himself and his family.
Nor did my grandmother.
Anonymous 5:40
1. Another suggestion that the slackers should die? Why do you suggest that?
2. I do look down on slackers. No need to say that any other way.
3. Slackers and weenies are human.
4. Slackers and weenies deserve what they earn.
5. A slacker or weenie is a healthy young man who does not support himself. There is no need to live their lives to say that.
you seem to think that slackers are less than you, but what do you term healthy, physicallly or mentally healthy. so you are perfect then, you have never found it hard to find employment, or have suffered discrimination. or been made to feel as if you are nothing. IF a slacker or a weenie in your words, are a waste of resources, because they are lazy.
then what would be better than to eliminate them, that way there wouldnt be slackers anymore. You CANNOT judge a person on those terms. by terming young men as slackers and weenies, you are turning them into less than human beings, making them less than you. by you very actions you are doing that. wait till you lose your job and cant find one and lose your home. and see if you like being called weenie or a slacker
Anonymous 6:10,
1. I am perfect.
2. I have never had trouble finding employment.
3. If I have suffered discrimination, I am unaware of it and don't care.
4. Nobody can make me feel anything about myself. I decide that.
5. I choose the characteristics on which I judge people.
6. Slackers are not less than humans. Humans have a very wide range of behaviors.
7. I have lost jobs, homes, businesses, and everything else. Big deal. It was an opportunity to start over again and do it right. Eventually I did get it right.
In our church, when duties that have tended to be a boy's domain are opened to girls, the boys lose interest and their participation drops off. The onset of "unisex" seems to have dampened the enthusiasm for something as simple as being an altar server. Perhaps their areas of competence and special areas of domain are just getting ever narrower for boys, even at an early age. Surely there is some reason for this tendency to opt out of a activity that is as yet poorly understood. Perhaps it has to do with a sense of ownership or territorial feelings. I can't pretend to have the answer(s), but it seems to happen in every parish where the practice of opening up this once exclusive arena to girls is employed. Maybe the boys just see the activity as devalued, not special to them anymore. It's an interesting phenomenon that keener minds than mine can investigate. Certainly boys may well feel devalued and disenfranchised in our schools that seem to favor a more feminine sensiblity. Somehow plastics and video games seem a rather absurd and stupid theory at best.
Hey Dr. Helen, you might want to lock your comments down to registered users. I'm seeing a lot of anonymous borderline troll posts.
I have to wonder at the maturity of someone who keeps calling people 'weenies'. Yes, they may be working, and have an apartment, but they are certainly not an adult.
Has anyone thought about the people who are disabled? Are they slackers?
I agree with 17.33. It's not anyone's business who lives at home, as it's not impacting them. Their parents want them home, or let them live at home, fine.
Everyone has something that someone could choose to look down on. It takes a better person to realise that, and deal with their own problems, then go on about things that do not impact them. People live at home, get over it and move on.
Ann, you mention wanting a baby, but you don't mention a husband. It's not a good idea to purposely have a baby with no dad around to help you raise it. That may not be what you plan at all, but I'm just saying in case it is.
There are many other things you should consider besides childcare costs. Don't just 'want a baby'; you have to want to raise another human being to adulthood, and that also should be with a father.
You know, my grandpa didn't have the luxury to let depression drive him into not supporting himself and his family.
SOMEBOD"Y gets it. That's why marriage and a family are important - they don't allow the option of being unproductive.
Denise, no one is talking about the GENUINELY disabled here. As to whose business it is, the topic of a discussion is the business of the participants. Despite the slackers' whining, no one ie persecuting them here. No one has so much as raised a hand at them. We've been expressing our opinions about the topic, and their tender sensitivities have been all bent out of shape because someone dared to not approve of, embrace, applaud and otherwise be enablers for their behavior. If they really had conviction about the overwhelming righteousness of their choices, they would come up with something other than angry childish outbursts to defend it.
Knightwatch, the only difference between your defense of slackerhood and Darren's is that he isn't claiming to be one of them.
Ann and Marybel,
Of course, it's never the fault of the individual and the choices he's made, right?
There are men who, despite all the circumstances you cite, manage to make something of themselves. Clearly, these circumstances are not the independent variable.
because of situations YOU dont know about, in places you HAVENT been.
Hey, it's their OWN words here that we're responding to. If they have a good reason for the way they live, they haven't been very forthcoming with it. All they've done is lash out at anyone who questions them.
Some of us heard all the same anti-male agitprop. We were called the same names, yada yada yada, but we decided not to let it stop us from going out and making our way in the world.
I was taken to the cleaners by a gold digging hussy, and it didn't kill me. I'd much rather have taken the risk and then taken my lumps than to hide from life in my parents' basement.
sometimes reasons are personal, and should remain personal, i dont want to tell you My private details, 1. i dont trust that it will be used to give sympathy.
2. that it will be another way to look down upon me, and accuse me of being a slacker or a weenie.
perhaps you should look to yourselves, cant you have any compassion for anyone not working, would you give these people a chance of a job. a chance to make a difference in their lives, or are they slackers and will always be slackers.
After reading through the comments here, I get the impression that a lot of the posters are assuming that these young men are:
1. unemployed
2. unmotivated
3. intentional slackers
I would imagine that the vast majority of these young men that are living at home are employed and hard working.
The difference between men and women, even in this so called time of equality, is that women are still marrying up. This enables them to meet a guy and take advantage of the resources (home, money, etc) he has, thus enabling them to move out.
Where as the young guys, still aware that they have to bring all this stuff to the table to be seen as a viable option to a lot of women (they don't have to earn the money to support one person, they have to find the money that can support 2 or more). Some men are using staying at home to build up these resources. I know that was exactly what I did.
Since I moved out of home at 24 (now 29) I have seen over the last few years my resources drindle (cannot afford a house at UK prices (a 1 bed house in the town I live costs £110,000) and rent is crippling me) At the moment moving back home seem like the sencible soulution.
I have recently split up with a woman I was having a relationship with, the reason she gave was that, i couldn't afford to support both of us if she lost her job! (lucky miss for me!) but this is the attitude of some women out there and men know this.
So those that call these guy's slackers and weenies, they are just making the best of a complicated situration, and I am sure that most of them would love to have their own place and to be inderpendent of their parents, but life just does not make this that easy for everbody.
denise,
As stated earlier, a slacker or weenie is a healthy young man who does not support himself. This does not include disabled.
Ann,
1. The problem with attributing the slackers to all those characteristics of society you mention is that so many young men do very well and do take care of themselves and others. They have divorced parents, grew up during wars, etc.
2. I think anyone going into social work knows it is notoriiously low paying. It's a choice. Why complain about it?
erikz,
Come on. Rise to the challenge without asking Helen to fight the battle. If you have a point to make, just do it. If you want to dispute something said by another poeter, just do it. If you have a position you want to develop and defend, feel free to do so.
Ann,
When the kid asks why people died in Katrina, what is your answer?
Wookie,
Life doesn't make things easy for anybody. What does that matter?
If you want to understand what's going on, you need to look at the statistics. Real income of men aged 24-34 has been DECLINING since it peaked in the 1970s. This means a greater percentage of men in that age range cannot afford to live on their own.
Please read the post at my blog for more info.
Defense for slackerhood? I've never defended the slacker lifestyle
You've opposed those who are critical of men who spend their days playing video games in their parents' basement instead of doing something about getting out of the nest.
I've worked smart all my life, but I refuse to work 60/ 80 hours per week -- day in, day out,
Fine, more power to you, if you have the skills. However, if you don't have them and spend your life hiding in your parents' basement playing videogames, spare us the litany of how society made you.
I want more out of life, thus I scale down my wants to afford my needs, and I stay out of debt. I'll live in a two bedroom shack and drive a fifteen year-old car if it gives me the luxury of more freedom to travel, take cruises, go to sporting events etc., etc.
Been there, done that. I endorse and recommend it. The point is, it's YOUR 2 bedroom shack, and YOUR 5 year old car, and, presumably, you don't send Mom out to shop for your underwear. In that case, you're not who we're talking about, so what's your problem?
If I cannot change this entropic culture around (as I view it),
Given the things you claim you save your money for (cruises, sporting events) seems you're fully integrated into the dominant culture, despite your protests.
I don't go into debt to please others.
Amen to that.
When it comes to debt, btw, there's seems to be a lot of "unconcerned and negligent" (part of the definition of a slacker) folks out there. What happens if they die? Who pays their bills?
Where did I (or anyone here, for that matter) advocate debt? I pay cash for everything except the house, which I could write a check to pay off today (a mortgage is actually not a bad thing, provided you have the means to pay it off and you can make more investing the principal than you pay in interest.) I don't even have a credit card.
living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it
i.e. the self absorbed narcissist. You enjoy the benefits of generations of people who strove to make a difference for others. Like I asked before, do you want to give back the medical technology, infrastructure, etc., that make your life so pleasant? Sorry, but there's a darn good reason why society lauds the things you despise - without them, we'd still be in caves. Don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch capitalist, but I realize capitalism won't work if the participants are without conscience.
and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst."
Nihilism benefits no one.
I have a positive attitude, and normally my talk does not center around this issue. It's other people that bring it up that forces me to defend my choices.
Based on your description, I don't see what choices you're defending here. You've just outlined multiple reasons why you're not who we're talking about.
The choices I am making are choices that have validity only for me. I will gladly make an effort to defend those choices, but virtually none at all arguing that they should be anyone else's.
Which is an intellectually vaccuous position. If you don't believe your choices hold objective value, then you should change them. If you do believe it, then you should promote them.
It seems to me you're just angry - at what, I'm not sure.
exactly ann, thats the point most of us are trying to make, but we each see things differently. you cant have a linear culture, it is varied, the effects of demasculation on men, can be a starting point or a middle point. in how a culture declines.
if you tell men they are worthless they will beleive it, as they are brain washed into beleiving it. then this has an effect on the work place, these men being told they are garbage, act like it, and have more aggression and will take it out on women, who then makes more laws to protect themselves thereby reducing men again, and so on.. culture doesnt exist in isolation. but thats what some of these people think, that men shouldnt be bothered by being called rapists. or by unfair laws. but if it was women who were being told they were garbage all the time (for about 40 years).. then there would be an outcry, you wouldnt call them weenies or slackers, whats so different about men, is it the perception that men have to be strong. or is it that men are perceived as being less important that woman. and men have to suck it up and take it like a real man (whatever that means)
I don't care a whit about money, can make my own just fine, thank you.
But I've never understood why some men complain about being wanted for their bank when often the only thing they want women for is for the booty.
It's a fair cop, people.
Mercurior,
If you tell men they are worthless, most will laugh at it and get on with life. The weenies will get upset.
A weenie looks around and finds all the difficulties in life and whines about them. If there aren't enough real difficulties, he goes out and invents some so he has an excuse for himself.
The world is full of men who have succeeded in their endeavors. If the weenies' ideas were correct, we wouldn't see that success.
Men don't have to be strong; they choose to be strong. Weenies choose to be weak.
There are men who just want the booty, and then there are men who want something more meaningful
There are women who just want the bank, and then there are women who want something more meaningful.
The problem is that very rarely do the second type of men get together with the second type of women.
Anonymous 12:39
I think most of the ones whining about some woman taking their money really don't have much to take.
If they're working and paying rent, then that doesn't qualify the definition of a slacker
Rent at fair market rates? I somehow doubt it. Paying a token pittance in rent and holding that up as some banner of self-reliance is like saying "yeah, but they make me buy my own game cartridges."
I know this is a threadjack and veers away from the premise, but my beef about the culture has never been a consumer related issue of goods and services.
I was looking more at WHICH consumer goods and services. Cruises and sporting events are essentially the least common denominator, flash in the pan, pacification of the masses products. When someone makes claims of being "above it all" I expect that they're going to want something other than "bread and circuses."
It's the raunch culture,
Exactly my point - and you seem to
be lapping up the most degenerate parts of it short of going into full sleaze mode. When you said what you spent your money on, it was like sitting at a table with someone who pontificates about what a connoiseur they are, then orders Miller Lite.
How long do we accept the undermining of freedom before we not only complain but take action?
But what action? You haven't even clearly stated the problem, let alone proposed solutions. For the most part, you're just spewing 60's agitprop and tortured metaphors.
I prefer to think of mine as healthy thanks to the added glass of "humility" in my diet.
Seems like you've been hiding that glass under the table.
I don't go around doing "whatever I want". Don't tell me you're the "type" who needs detailed exegesis on everything and anything one writes?
No, but you should go back and read what you wrote. Don't be shocked when people take the clear meaning of your words at face value. Comment threads like this inspire strong emotions, which are not always the best basis for clear expression. Stop and take a few deep breaths before launching yourself at the keyboard, and you'll make yourself clear the first time.
Oh, I can fight. But what good does it do when people already use the Constitution as toilet paper, so I can work for their utopian dreams? Soon, it becomes another whine-fest where I have to suck it up.
See, that's what I'm talking about. A string of catchphrases doesn't serve any purpose. You need to clearly and rationally articulate a point.
Somehow, I think the middle finger salutation is more effective.
And how's that working for you? I have a city government and a school board that get nervous whenever I show up at a meeting. At one time or another, I've stopped various socialist projects of theirs. I didn't do it by waving my middle finger, or by parroting vague sound bites; I did it by carefully laying out the case against them. It's worked well enough that I now have people willing to throw their own money behind some of my efforts. You said you work smart, now you need to fight smart.
I approved a job offer for a guy today. He's 26, spent four years in the Army as an officer, two tours in Iraq, and has a Bachelors degree from his home state university.
I know we can teach a guy like this what we do, and I am confident he will be an asset to the organization. He's smart, amiable, ambitious, and hungry. And above all, he has proved himself.
We are offering $75k to start, and I'm not sure that's going to get him. I know the competition, and they see him the same way we do. We may get shafted.
I doubt whinng has ever crossed his mind.
Anonymous Said: My grandmother was not able to vote for some period of time though all men (including former slaves) could. She was, then, in essence, less than a slave in the eyes of the government. How do you think that made her feel? What effect do you think that had on her and her attitudes? She and her mother were considered chattel.
My mother's occupational choices were seriously limited. School teacher, nurse, or secretary basically. In fact, even I was led to believe in school as a child that these essentially were my options. How do you reckon that made us feel?
As a lawyer, there are many who do not prefer to hire a female. They think we are not constitutionally and emotionally strong enough. To be certain, other lawyers have treated me with disdain ("the little girl lawyer") and word has gotten back to me about judges commenting on my physique. If I am given good treatment, I suspect it is because of my tits, not out of any respect.
Chris Key Says: Considering that you're a self-proclaimed *lawyer*, then you should be aware of the legal impunity that has been offered to women for HUNDREDS of years. Women have received criminal law exemption and civil law privilege since the days of Old English Law, yet I haven't seen you acknowledge this fact at all.
Women were allowed to commit adultery, slander, libel, stalk, harass, assault, and defraud their husbands with impunity during the 19th Century, as has been documented in a book known as *The Legal Subjection of Men*. In fact, while the female murderers were offered exemption from corporal punishment, the young boys who committed menial crimes at school were not so lucky, as they were flagellated by the staff of the schools. In other words, women were NEVER required to take accountability for their actions, and that meant they were free to commit the most horrific acts and with impunity.
Are you a competent lawyer? IF so then how come you have failed to acknowledge the history of the law system? A competent lawyer would be aware of the history of her nation’s legal system, and since you're such a wonderful and efficient employee, you should be aware of the 19th Century Law.
IF you failed to learn about the history of the law system, then you can always read a book titled "The Legal Subjection of Men" in 1908 by Belfort Bax, as he used OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to document the legal impunity that women received since the 19th Century.
An online copy of the book is available at the following site: http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/Belfort_Bax.html
The slaves and the men of society were never granted the legal impunity that was available to women for hundreds of years, and women were protected from the draft and obtained a wealth of privilege through the implementation of chivalry.
The industrialisation of the world during the 17th-18th Centuries led to the birth of a variety of physically demanding and hazardous industries, and women DID NOT want to work in such fields. Prior to the industrialised revolution, women were a common sight in the workforce, however they decided to EXIT the institution when the work became extremely strenuous and hazardous.
Women's Only Universities were in existence by the 1830's - nearly two full decades prior to the first ever Women's Rights Conference was held on American soil in 1848 - and a LOT of women during the 19th Century were successful in obtaining an education and employment.
Susan B Anthony was a teacher, a lawyer, and she even became a registered politician (women's suffrage had not been granted at the time, but women could still campaign for office); all during the 19th Century.
The late 19th Century and early 20th Century saw the rise of a few VERY intelligent female inventors, who went on to win the Nobel Prize for their outstanding contributions to society. It must also be noted that during the late 19th Century, quite a few female scientists and inventors were revolutionising the world, however there seems to be a scarcity of such women in today's society. Around 90% of inventions in the world have been created by men and even in today's society, the majority of inventors happen to be men.
Out of the 25 most hazardous industries, 24 of them are dominated by male employees, and as a result around 94% of persons who die while working happen to be men. If men were the lazy *slackers* as some of the liberals on this thread have tried to insinuate, then why on Earth would the most physically demanding and hazardous industries be dominated by male employees?
A greater amount of women are attending University, however the majority of them are studying the ideological subjects that do not require the ability to engage in analytical thinking (IE. media studies, sociology, Women's studies, tourism, art). The scientific and mathematic subjects are STILL dominated by men, as these fields require innate ability, and the design of the male brain is most accommodated to engaging in the process of analytical thinking.
Male Brain - Contains a large amount of an unmyelinated substance known as *grey matter*, which is the product that specialises in the processing of information. The unmyelinated structure of the substance mean that it is a poor conductor, therefore signals travel slightly slower in the male brain, leading to a lesser ability to understand facial expressions.
Female Brain - Contains a large amount of a myelinated substance known as *white matter, which is a fast conductor, and allows women to understand the emotional state of other people. The scarce amount of *grey matter* within the female brain means that women are less able to analyse and interpret data from the outside world (analytical thinking), so men in general tend to be more able to succeed within the scientific and mathematic fields.
The vast majority of persons who possess an IQ over 170 happen to be male, and males are more likely than females to possess an IQ over 130. Obtaining a degree in *media studies* is not a major accomplishment, as even an intellectual retard could understand the information, as all they need to do is retain the data that is displayed during the classes, they DO NOT need to engage in analytical thinking.
Anonymous Said: But I just can't tolerate this sob story shit. Things are tough all over. If men have it so bad (and I affirmatively deny that they do), the shit ain't lasted nearly as long as what women suffered. That doesn't mean it's ok. It just means, you shouldn't expect a whole lot of sympathy. You know, remove the mote from your own eye and shit. Men, heal the sickness within your own gender and set a good example.
Chris Key Says: Women were never oppressed in the Western world, as women gained legal impunity through criminal law exemption and civil law privilege for HUNDREDS of years. An oppressed demographic is one that is coerced into performing a LARGE amount of responsibilities WITHOUT rights and privileges, therefore how can women claim to have been subjugated when they received legal impunity for hundreds of years? The African Americans WERE oppressed as they were required to abide by a variety of state-enforced responsibilities however they were not offered any rights. The women were never placed in such a horrible position. The men of today are required to abide by a variety of state-enforced responsibilities, and they are held accountable for their actions and are denied many of the rights that women enjoy. Thankfully, the men of today are not treated as poorly as the African Americans were during the 19th Century, however the men today are suffering from a form of subjugation that is far more horrific and demoralising than anything that women have ever endured in the Western world. Objective evidence on the subject can be seen at my site - www.mens-rights.net
Anonymous 4:31 said:
We are offering $75k to start, and I'm not sure that's going to get him. I know the competition, and they see him the same way we do. We may get shafted.
Good for you. While I was never in the forces (my country's involvment in Vietnam scaled down just before I went to college), with his credentials you know you are getting someone who does not have a sense of entitlement and who does know what responsibility is and who is likely to work hard and smart. I wish you luck.
In my industry we look to people's contributions. If they have contributed to an open source software project, they are instantly snapped up.
Huh? Once again, you're talking right past me. I think it is you who needs to articulate your point further. So sporting events are raunch?
No, not from a moral standpoint, but from a cultural standpoint, you're taking in the least common denominator pablum that's been used for millenia to pacify the masses. Do you know what "bread and circuses" refers to? It was the Roman formula for pacifying the masses. "Circuses" referred to spectator sporting events, specifically chariot races and gladiators. Cruises are another intellectually vaccuous least common denominator form of entertainment designed for the masses. Neither fits as an appropriate diversion for someone of the Nietzchian superiority you give airs to.
What you're asking is for people to fit into your self defined perceptions of reality because you see your paradigm as the one of highest value.
Again, the only rational basis for holding a paridigm is one's belief that it is the best one. If there's a better one than the one you have, only a fool would not adopt it.
I say the culture I despise is the same culture that gave us the movie "American Beauty". Yet, the very moral ambiguity that "American Beauty" represents
Well right there you're off the rails in your assumption that the movie represents moral ambiguity. If anything, it's a farcical illustration of the folly of moral ambiguity. Portrayal does not equal advocacy. Now, if you were talking about the culture that created something for "American Beauty" to comment (negatively) on, you'd be more on track.
you say I have absorbed based on my previous comments on this board. Is this an accurate description? In other words, I'm wallowing with the pigs and I don't know it. Is this analogy your subjective take?
Not exactly, but you're getting there. Let's just say you conform to the dominant, vaccuous pop culture more than you'd like to believe. For someone who gives pretense to great intellectual insight, your chosen diversions are rather lowbrow.
The only "above it all" stand I have taken was one of being wary of conventional wisdom,
A large part of the conventional wisdom says that these things are worthwhile passtimes, and that their lack of potential for fostering intellectual growth is of no concern. You don't seem to wary of that.
of blindly following popular opinion, or a collective mindset that says we should do things this way
Right - popular opinion about what constitutes good entertainment and leisure. I've never seen a more compelling demonstration of a collective mindset than the crowd at a professional sporting event. After all, everybody just "knows" that who's in the playoffs should consume more collective attention than, say, immigration reform legislation or what's going on in the Middle East.
(ie we must get married, have a white picket fence, 2.4 children and an SUV.
Well, getting married and having children has objective value for the sustenance of the values you seem to adhere to. Let's put it this way, Western fertility is below replacement rates, and the people who believe we should all live under Sharia law are having kids like crazy. Do the math.
we must color within the lines and do whatever the government tells us without question-- accept more social programs and entitlements -- follow the "obedient masses" similar to the Minority Report or you're a failure, a loser, or you have no life. If you get anywhere in life, you must play by OUR rules.)
And gee, you don't think 80,000 people packing a facility, all wearing similar shirts, hats, face paint, etc., all mentally joined in the concern for whether one group of overpaid hired ringers from all over the country can move a ball more than another group of overpaid hired ringers from all over the country as if it's going to cure cancer, when a dozen apes could do better than either team, doesn't represent the absolute epitome of what you're talking about? Wow. I can't think of a better symbol of mindless conformity than when the crowd at a game does "the wave." And to be a part of THAT you drive a comparatively unreliable jalopy and live in tiny quarters.
The fundamental structure of our society is that you go to school for 12 years (16, if you include college) to learn to be productive and cooperative, then you spend 40 years at a "job" in order to make money to buy things.
And on Sunday, you go cheer for the home team, and once a year, you take a Carnival Cruise where you indulge in mindless hedonism and dilletante dabbling in the currently de rigeur recreational activities. See how you CONVENIENTLY leave out the parts of the well known standard formula that suggest you might be involved? In fact, it's important that marriage and a stable family enjoys far less status as a legitimate plank in this conformity platform than cruises and sporting events.
Many people DO define themselves through their career, to the point where it is part of their introductory self-description:
Just as many if not more define themselves in terms of the NFL, NBA, or MLB team they idolize.
Hi, my name is Bob, do you think the White Sox will do it again this year?
For a vast number of people, everything else is secondary to their career,
People these days go through several careers. Also, what's so terrible about placing some importance on how you contribute to the world - how you justify the resources you use?
And buying stuff is seen as almost as important. "Keeping up with the Joneses" seems a major part of most people's lives.
For a lot of people I know, keeping up with the Joneses involves having better season football tickets than the Joneses and taking a more lavish cruise.
In the last 10 - 15 years, we have seen the development of where the "high-end goods", the high-tech toys, have become "necessities" despite that they barely even existed a decade ago.
And gee, there was a time you could say that about indoor plumbing or the polio vaccine. Is there some reason we shouldn't have wide distribution of the benefits of technological advancement? All that's happened recently is the time cycle from a new discovery to when it offers tangible benefit to the majority of the population has gotten shorter.
These are things targeted at "the common people" but priced just above what everyone can afford, at least, without going into credit-card debt. But everyone has to have them, so we have a lot of credit card debt these days.
You mean like personal seat licenses and tickets on Carnival Lines? I'd say those represent the primary unsecured debts among those I would call sheeple.
We spend our entire lives working jobs we hate so we can buy stuff we do not need.
Like food, clothing, and shelter, or do those come free to people with bling?
Does it really make us happy? Is it really a good trade-off to work 10 hours a day, instead of 8 or 6, just so we can afford designer curtains and a BMW?
I wouldn't know. I wonder how many people are really what you describe. My experience is people drive BMW's who are paid at a rate that gets a BMW for only 8 hours work a day. Most of the people I know putting in overtime are doing it so they can afford to send their kids to a school that doesn't indoctrinate them in the mindset you complain about, or to support their kids' aspirationd to become one of those sports heroes you save your money to go see.
What if working for someone else our entire lives in order to buy stuff is actually antithetical to our natural dispositions, and the malaise so many people feel comes from the fact that we no longer remember how to live like human beings?
If it were, then there'd be more entrepeneurs.
I've seen the roadblocks to advancement.
I've seen challenges, but no roadblocks. Do you expect advancement on a silver platter?
Why not scale back my wants and make sacrifices in order to have more freedom?
A valid trade-off that many people make to varying degrees. One I've certainly made in some ways.
Because I see every dollar spent not as money but as time. Would a $40,000 car make me happy? Well, I have a perfectly serviceable Civic today that moves me from place to place quite admirably. For $40,000 I could buy a prestigious car, or I could buy not working for two years, three if I lived frugally.
All well and good, but your equation of money and time doesn't fit with how you said you make a living, a field where money and time are not closely related.
"economic freedom, supplemented by personal responsibility and constrained by a moral view of the universe.
And yet, there is an implicit amorality running through your rhetoric.
It is pretty clear (at least to me) that our civilization is on the edge of a cliff.
Absolutely.
It was never my desire to bash all institutions.
But that is the message you ended up sending, because you prefer angry flailing to careful exposition.
Verily, my hope is to see them recover from the malaise.
I don't care one way or the other. If you really don't depend upon the system, why should you care if it crumbles?
As far as the middle finger, I was being sarcastic.
From the rest of your rhetoric, it rang truer than you realize. If I had to summarize your rhetoric, I'd say it sounds like someone has watched "Fight Club" too many times.
beenaround, what industry is that?
Most of the companies I know who have use for the skills that enable one to contribute to an open source project, tend to view any participation in the open source community as a cardinal sin, and "open source" or "GPL" as profanities.
dweeb i just worked it out, you are a neo communist. you want everyone to work to support the country, support your precious beliefs. and those people who dont follow your life script, are somehow less than you. are weenies or slackers.
you want everyone to act the same. be the same. follow the same rules as everyone else. regardless of their beleifs.
once again you are judging everyone by your own particular beleifs. there are people who live, differently to you. why cant you accept that. and they have just as much reason for thier lives as do you.
dweeb asks:
beenaround, what industry is that?
Startup in Silly Valley ... and other companies, like, say, IBM, and so forth. Some of them are very sanguine about open source software projects.
BTW, OSS is more than GPL'd code, and it depends on your attitude as well. If you come across as a RMS-style GPL advocate, you might have some problems ...
Has anyone noticed that the blaming of women for men's problems has dropped off as the thread grew?
Well, anonymous 10:44, perhaps that's because not all women are to blame.
For example, my mother is not to blame for my problems, nor are my daughters, nor are my maternal or paternal aunts. I reserve judgement on all the rest.
realist,
Perhaps we are onto something. My mother daughers, sisters, and aunts are also not my oppressors. In fact, neither are your mother, daughters, and aunts.
So where are those big bad meanies?
anonymous 12:53, you missed the point. My relatives are more likely to have my interests at heart than anyone else. Indeed, non-relatives have an interest in frustrating my interest.
However, more importantly, the class of all men, or the class of all women is an unnatural and unlikely self-interest group. It's kind of like unions. Lots of people people have good reason to defect.
Damn conspiracies. The word verification contained the fragment fem.
What man here can name a specific woman who is oppressing him? How about some names and specific oppressive behavior?
Knight,
Of course hard workers get overlooked. As the pyramid narrows, there isn't room to promote all the hard workers.
There are some hardworkers who don't get along well with other people. They limit their promotion prospects even more. And after a certain level, hard work in one area does not translate to management skills upon which promotion is based.
There are also excellent managers who are less skilled than their subordinates in doing their subordinates work.
I hope every one of my employees is better at his job than I am at doing his job. I look for the best.
Anyone who doesn't involve themslves in office politics will get nowhere in management. Another type of person who will get absolutely nowhere is someone who is always whining about how they are oppressd. It doesn't matter who they identify as the oppressor, it eliminates them from competition. Who would follow a whiner?
The most ingenious and revolutionary persons to ever live on this planet were the anti-social men who dedicated their lives to the act of understanding the scientific and mathematic domains.
Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Galileo were super-intelligent, and their contributions to science and mathematics have allowed Humanity to advance at an exponential rate; all three of them were ANTI-SOCIAL and DID NOT conform to the societal expectations of *socialising* and *meeting the demands of *women*.
It's no wonder that the domesticated animals tend to possess smaller brains than those that are raised in the wild, as a creature that derives it's value on the amount of *company* and *approval* it can obtain is definitely a weak organism that does NOT engage in analytical thinking and refuses to show any initiative. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2115474,00.html
For all of those feminazi's who are stating that the act of a 25-year-old man living with his parents correlates to him being a *weenie*, then you're basically stating that the most ingenious and brilliant persons of all time who revolutionised the world were "weenies" based on your own definition of the word.
Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo have contributed more to this world than the entire female population, therefore the women of society are not in any position to ridicule the men who refuse to socialise and with to live at home with their parents.
Until the feminazi's who use the disphemism of *weenies* are able to accomplish the same feats as Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo, then they have nothing to boast about.
Chris,
Sir Issac Newton, Albert Einstein and Galileo were not antisocial. Many people do not understand this psychological term and think it has to do with avoiding people--it does not.
Antisocial personality is defined as a failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest,deceitfulness,repeated lying,failure to plan ahead,repeated physical fights,reckless disregard for self and others and lack of remorse. Does this sound like any of these incredibly brillant men?
I think you mean they were independent minded, internalizers who thought in an abstract manner and marched to the beat of their own drummer without looking to society for approval.
Actually I think what Chris was getting at was not so much that they were 'independent thinkers' but they were not socially adept, or concerned with spending lots of their time 'dating' and trying to obtain plenty of sex and social status. Men like Newton would today indeed be looked upon as 'Weenies' by most women and many men.
Daren,
Actually, I think Einstein was said to be a bit of a womanizer--but regardless, I get the point.
Chris,
That's an interesting idea about the brain size of wild versus domesticated animals. So, does a weenie who lives in his parents nest have a smaller brain than a guy who soes out and takes care of himself?
darren,
Did Einstein, Newton, and Galileo live in their parents nests as healthy adults?
Chris Key,
A bit off topic but Albert Einstein's first wife, may have contributed to some of his research:
The extent of Mileva's contribution to Einstein's Annus Mirabilis Papers is controversial. According to Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, the basic ideas for relativity came from Mileva [6]. Senta Troemel-Ploetz, a German linguist, says that the ideas may have been Albert's, but Mileva did the mathematics. On the other hand, John Stachel, keeper of Albert's letters, says that Mileva was little more than a sounding board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87
So some women may have been contributing more than was realized at that time--or not, depending on which take is correct. There is a theory also that after studying Einstein's brain, he may have had autistic qualities which seems to go hand in hand with genius at times. Again, off topic- but I did want to point out that women did and can contribute to serious research.
Einstein may or may not have been a womaniser, and his wife may or may not have helped him. Its all very easy to attack the reputation and accomplishments of a man years after he has died.
Nevertheless, the point remains about most of the revolutionary men of history not conforming to today's concept of a "real man". For example, Einstein was pretty disinterested in material wealth. A trait which would not likely endear him to most modern American women. He also made derogatory comments about nationalistic military impulses; a trait which would probably cause some of the annoymous posters here to call him a "weenie".
What person here can specifically cite a claim made in this thread of men being oppressed by women, in the first place?
Howzabout you provide some names and specific quotations from this thread, first?
It's 'dropped off' as the thread continued? Uh. . .no; actually there has been hardly any of it at all.
Unless of course you're making one of the classic misconceptual errors of the past couple of generations: errorneously conflating 'women' with 'femelitists'.
Clue Department: they're not identical. Not by a long stretch.
In my review of the thread, I've only seen one poster here blame 'women' in general, once (jw's post somewhere around the midpoint).
So. Shall we perhaps open a pool as to when and how many other 'citations' of such will be presented to back up the original female chauvanist victimization shame-and-blame-game accusation? Of course, as the tote, I get to reserve double-zero -- never and none -- to myself.
Yeah, yeah. . .I know. Sucker bet.
Helen Said:Antisocial personality is defined as a failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest,deceitfulness,repeated lying,failure to plan ahead,repeated physical fights,reckless disregard for self and others and lack of remorse. Does this sound like any of these incredibly brillant men?
Chris Key Says: At the time of Galileo's discoveries, he was persecuted by the church and told that his work was *unlawful* because it DID NOT conform to the preachings of the bible. He was then told that he must CEASE the publication of such information, and when he refused, he was placed on house arrest. Based on that, then yes, he DID refuse to conform to societal norms and he DID infringe upon the laws that existed at the time. Galileo fought a LOT with the Church and spent a LOT of his time on his own, and one of his best friends who was a clergymen became extremely angry with him when he refused to stop publicising the information that he discovered. - http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html
Sir Isaac Newton spent well over 2 years inside an apartment, where he dedicated his time to the studying of the solar system, and the only exercise he obtained was via the pacing of his small room. He rebelled at school, was rude to the SMALL amount of friends that he knew and he suffered from depression. - http://zyx.org/Newton.html
Anonymous Said:That's an interesting idea about the brain size of wild versus domesticated animals. So, does a weenie who lives in his parents nest have a smaller brain than a guy who soes out and takes care of himself?
Chris Key Says: The man who lives on his own with his parents is more likely to engage in analytical thinking, as he will have the time to study the scientific and mathematic fields, and he will develop a desire to understand the world. Such a process will lead to him improving his knowledge of the world, and he will the intellectual stimulation will increase his intelligence and common sense. Perhaps that is why the men who live at home are less likely to be manipulated by the feminazi's.
The man who goes out *clubbing* and *socialising* with women is most likely going to develop the traits of a submissive simpleton, as he dedicates his time to thinking about how he can *meet the demands of women* in order to *gain sex and female approval*. In the process he is NOT engaging in complex analytical thinking, therefore his brain will NOT evolve at all.
Bonobos are matriarchal creatures who engage in sodomy and homosexual behaviour on a daily basis, and their intelligence seems to be limited in comparison to the chimpanzees, who are patriarchal and are the ONLY other primates that are advanced enough to form cabals and hunt prey in a sophisticated manner that involves complex premeditated planning.
Helen Said: A bit off topic but Albert Einstein's first wife, may have contributed to some of his research:
The extent of Mileva's contribution to Einstein's Annus Mirabilis Papers is controversial. According to Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, the basic ideas for relativity came from Mileva [6]. Senta Troemel-Ploetz, a German linguist, says that the ideas may have been Albert's, but Mileva did the mathematics. On the other hand, John Stachel, keeper of Albert's letters, says that Mileva was little more than a sounding board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87
So some women may have been contributing more than was realized at that time--or not, depending on which take is correct. There is a theory also that after studying Einstein's brain, he may have had autistic qualities which seems to go hand in hand with genius at times. Again, off topic- but I did want to point out that women did and can contribute to serious research.
Chris Key Says: As I said earlier, the women from the late 19th Century were far more intelligent than the current generation of females. There are quite a few intelligent women who revolutionised the world during the late 19th Century, however the women of today have not contributed very much at all to science or mathematics.
There were a group of female scientists who recently made a wonderful discovery about Prostate Cancer, and they should be lauded as their intelligent and dedication to their work is DEFINITELY VERY HIGH. However, the vast majority of inventors, scientists and mathematicians in today's society are male.
Darren,
A weenie may or may not be nationalistic. In the context of this discussion a weenie is a healthy young man who does not support himself.
Your suggestion that a weenie lacks nationalistic sentiment is interesting. On what do you base it?
acksiom,
Glad to know you are not oppressed by women. Isn't that a liberating feeling?
Chris,
Why will ther weenie living at home engage in more analytical thinking simply because he has the time? Doesn't he need that time for video games?
Chris,
Were the vast majority of inventors, scientists and mathematicians in the late 19th century male? If so, how is that different from your claims about today?
Anonymous Said: Why will ther weenie living at home engage in more analytical thinking simply because he has the time? Doesn't he need that time for video games?
Chris Key Says: The male brain has evolved to accommodate the ability to think in an analytical and spatial manner, which are the two traits that MOST video games require. In other words, video games and sport offer men the form of intellectual stimulation that a *Feminised Workforce* cannot provide.
Anonymous Said: Were the vast majority of inventors, scientists and mathematicians in the late 19th century male? If so, how is that different from your claims about today?
Chris Key Says: The vast majority of inventors, scientists and mathematicians from the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have been male. The only difference between the 19th Century and now is the fact that women can now rely on the socialist state and the technology that has been produced by the men, while in the past they were dependent upon the intellectual and physiological superiority of men in order to survive in the harsh nature of the environment.
The vast majority of women prefer to be financially supported and pampered by men - which can be verified by the fact that women tend to exit the workforce during their 30's and live off their husband's wages - therefore the reference to the unemployed men as *weenies* is a logical fallacy.
How many women are willing to marry and support the unemployed men of society? If women were willing to marry and support the unemployed men of society, then those type of men would not be referred to as *weenies*.
In fact, women in general will only relate to the men who work and have money, while men are willing to marry the women who are unemployed and poor.
Well, gee, I've never been on an intellectual vacation. What are they like?
How about just a non-lemming vacation? Since you talk the talk all about the road less travelled, why not walk the walk?
Try relaxing next time.
If you're so above the rat race, why do you need to get in line with all the rats to escape your life in order to relax? Why follow all the cubicle dwelling lemmings on your time off?
If traveling's not one of your strong points,
I love to travel, just not to the de rigeur tourist traps.
No one's asking you to go out and see God's backyard.
Oh you mean the floor show and casino on the cruise ship? I prefer the real thing, not the shrink wrapped, processed, Disney World plastic imitation.
(If you continue to reduce to condescending remarks, then I'll gladly reciprocate the favor. The choice is yours to make)
I haven't condescended to you once, but if you like, I can start.
That's your self-defined perception.
You're free to correct it with more than cliched sound bites.
The lofty pedestal you're standing on is already at nose bleed levels.
Hardly - I'm just looking for some sign that your boasting has some substance behind it.
Um, no .. the only rational basis for holding a paradigm is one's belief that it's the one that best suits their lifestyle (within a moral frame, naturally)
"Within a moral frame" after you've just outlined classic moral relativism.
I don't pretend to walk in other people's shoes; I don't claim to know their strengths and weaknesses nor what they can afford and not afford. Therefore what suits you, might not suit me. One size does not fit all.
But your whole theme has been exactly the opposite. You're all about the inferiority of those you call cubicle slaves for not taking your higher road.
I was. However, unlike you, I'm reluctant to give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt that they promoted anything positive with "Beauty".
I'm no fan of Hollywood, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. If you think that movie portrays the behavior of any of its characters in a positive light, then you must have walked out before it was over.
Oh, I'm wary, but the truth of the matter is -- one doesn't recieve a frown by society for failing to show up at a sporting event.
Well, as a regular attendee, you're not really in a position to know that, and I can tell you you're wrong. I've received plenty of frowns for not wanting to attend NFL and MLB games. Living in a town that lost an NFL team, when I said it wasn't the end of the world, from peoples' reaction you'd think I'd just suggested cannabalism.
If one doesn't travel to Mount Rushmore, people aren't going to react in the same way as they'll react when they find out -- "You're still single? What's wrong?"
Can't say I EVER get that reaction, or anything close to it. But then I don't go to sporting events, cruises, and other venues crawling with lemmings. Maybe it's the company you keep and the places you frequent.
Many people do frown (or maybe they're jealous) when they see your domestic lifestyle or political views do not match THEIRS.
If anything, I find people frown when I don't support political policies that serve to enable single amoral hedonism. You don't, by any chance, live in some backwater cow town do you?
Combine shame-based therapy with conventional wisdom on a domestic front and you've got a wicked brew.
Only to the weak minded. I stopped paying attention to peer pressure around the fourth grade.
Are you sure you're not arguing just for sake of an argument?
No, I'm really trying to figure out if you're half the iconoclast you claim to be, and so far, it's not looking good.
If you hate sports, fine.
I think they're fine, FOR PARTICIPANTS. Spectating, and hero worship of people for feats that trained animals can out do, that's a problem. Whatever sport you like, try DOING instead of WATCHING OTHERS DO.
People work hard on the weekdays, they let off steam on the weekends.
BUT NOT YOU or so you claim. You don't work hard, you don't do the rat race. You exist on some low stress plain above all the cubicles.
As for the collective mindset -- there is a spectrum. Possibly half of these people at a sporting event are the same ones that also do what I have listed, blindly following things without rhyme or reason, never assessing whether what one said is correct.
More like 90% or more.
I don't go to a game because the crowd is there.
You go where the crowd goes, to see what the crowd sees, and you've not articulated any motive that's different from the crowd's.
Instead of the collective mindset, however, I might should have said the "socialist" (same thing) mindset who give us, as Michael Bates, puts it -- "idiot politicians,unenforceable and unconstitutional laws, safety Nazis, bubble-headed, loud-mouthed Hollywood dim wits, junk scientists, environmental terrorists, gender feminist bores, multi-cultural politically correct garbage, gun-grabbing sissies, self-righteous soccer moms, supreme court socialists, planned parenthood, PETA loons, revisionist historians, propaganda-printing newspapers, IRS, NEA, NSC, OSHA, FEMA, ATF, ACLU, NOW, CBS, NBC, ABC ..."
All of which are a result of the collective mindset, where people abdicate individual consciosness and free will in exchange for being cared for and amused. To your list I might add confiscatory county and municipal taxes to pay for stadiums.
Unlike this list, people who go to a game do not enforce how I should live my life while I'm watching the game. And that's what I'M talking about. Your mileage may very.
But nothing exists in a vacuum. Lemming behavior in leisure begets lemming behavior in the voting booth, and the school, etc. Bread and circuses - entertainment that discourages critical thought. Don't question why we favor one set of overpaid ringers from out of town over another, and don't question why the socialist leaning candidate is the one who is popular. Pay $4000 for a personal seat license in the new stadium, because everybody else is, and then we can all demand that the government give us free health insurance because we're $4000 poorer.
If the news people, journalists, and hosts were more civil in their debates instead of getting into shouting matches, maybe a lot more viewers would tune in, instead of tuning out; they would be more willing to discuss immigration reform legislation or what's going on in the Middle East with each other. Look at your political programs on cable. Everybody is shouting or talking at once and no one's listening
Guess again The highest rated show (American Idol) involves watching three celebrities tearing down a series of random people through personal attacks. People eat it up. If you know anything about history, you know our politics has become LESS animated and MORE sedate - in the mid 1800's, there were fistfights on the floor of the US Senate, and one senator beat another with a cane. Read transcripts of congressional debates from the 20's, 30's and 40's - they made Don Rickles sound like a pussycat. No, the reason people don't care about substantive issues is they just don't want to THINK. They want someone to take care of them and amuse them, so they can devote 90% of their brain power to discussions of who's going to the Final Four.
Our promiscuous society, abortions, and the birth control pill are also responsible.
OK, given this statement, given your take on marriage and family, the big question is, are you actually celibate, or is this just more big talk?
It's also a sad commentary when society selfishly think of children ....or as means to run a baby race with the Muslims.
Interesting you should say that. How are a culture's values to continue then - by institutional indoctrination of the children of other cultures? You make a big noise about liberty - if those who value liberty continue to be a dwindling demographic, how can you expect liberty to survive? Advocates of libery can't legitimately call for Huxleyan indoctrination programs, so the only way for a belief in liberty to survive is for those who hold it to have children and pass it on to them. You can't defend a libertarian's right to raise his child to love freedom unless you simultaneously defend the Islamist's right to raise his child to want Sharia. Given that, and anything approaching democracy, the only viable way to propogate libertarian values is for those who hold them to bear and raise future libertarians. All the alternatives are offensive to the ideals you seem to espouse.
I can live in a "shack and ride my jalopy", but I'll be damned if I would do so if I had a family and could afford more. I would only want the best for my wife and kids.
A questionable position. The hardships you've faced in life made you who you are, and it appears you are pleased with who you are. A life of ease might not build the same level of character in your kids. We've seen millions of baby boomers declare their kids wouldn't face the adversity they did, and those kids grew up with an entitlement ethic, and voted in most of the things you listed as problems.
Like I said elsewhere, there's a spectrum here that contains a huge portion of the people I'm talking about,
And the single biggest increment down that spectrum is buying that overpriced ticket and going through that turnstile. There is little to nothing of the the non lemming aspects of seeing a sporting event that can't be had on television.
I will add this, to continue harping on the negative aspects of sports reveals a lot about your character.
Only in the world of your assumptions. I've only spoken about spectator sporting events - you know nothing of my personal relationship with the world of sports, a world that goes far beyond your stadiums.
I don't praise or worship the indulgence nor the drugs,
What's wrong with a little steroids? That's the most ironic thing about pro sports - that they frown on the doping. We had Congressional hearings on this - what a waste of time, and overreach of government! In the end, MLB is SHOW BUSINESS. I don't see Congress holding hearings on how many of the starlets on Baywatch had implants, or whether Spielberg's dinosaurs were CGI tricks. It's no different - the entertainment experience is enhanced by artificial means. We worry about athletes doping - it's not fair - is it fair that one kid has to compete on a scholarship test or his SAT's against a kid whose been doping with Ritalin? Should we fuss over a hitter on steroids when most major league pitchers have had elective shoulder enhancement surgery? In the end, it's show business. Actors get face lifts, hair transplants, and breast implants, the gladiators get tweeked,too - pitchers go to surgeons and batters go to internists. The audience gets a good show, whether its from Pam Anderson or Barry Bonds.
but the merits of athletics far outweigh the negatives, especially in the high school and college level.
Ah yes, the pep assemblies that resemble nothing so much as the Nuremburg rally.
It's the competitive spirit in high school athletics that drive many kids into future excellence and competition.
That's why so many high school athletic stars are now asking, "would you like fries with that?"
Outdoor sports is probably the first time kids are acquainted with competition. People go further in life when they participate in sports.
Operative term: PARTICIPATE. Shouting in the bleachers is not participating.
Athletic scholarships support many in their academics.
It's been shown many times that the training demands on scholarship athletes make it impossible for most to get any meaningful education. Newsweek once did a report on NCAA basketball stars who graduated but didn't go into the NBA. They were all in unskilled service sector jobs like hotel doorman.
If it hadn't been for middle ear sinus pressure blowing out my drums, I might have continued in my pursuit of athletics
There are many athletic sports where that wouldn't be an obstacle, especially if you still have your hearing.
Um, make that Saturday. High school and college sports reveals a competitive spirit that I have always longed and envied.
If a school doesn't let sports overshadow academics, then I have no problem, but, sadly, that is seldom the case these days.
many of these kids actually sweat by the brow. They work hard for their scholarships. Don't knock it!
Aren't you the one who knocked sweat and toil?
I suppose photography, excursions, and relaxing are an anathema to you.
All of which can be had for less elsewhere. You want to do some interesting photography? Try going directly to an island where the cruise lines haven't put in a dock yet. If you really want to see what I'm talking about, go to one where a cruise ship dock is under construction, and then go back after it's in use, and look at the difference. Try going for a vacation experience where you can't find a Big Mac. Go camping in God's REAL backyard. Pick a destination that isn't just a clone of your home town bar and dance club scene, except with better weather. Eat something that can't be ordered through a drive thru window. Hear some music that's NEVER going to be on a CD at Best Buy. Talk to some people who never heard of Kobe Bryant or Tom Cruise. Spend a week somewhere without access to NBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, ESPN, or CNN.
Not only is marriage and family unaffordable without going into "slave mode", but with today's court systems, the risk/ reward is not worth it.
No argument there, but that's a reason to fight that malaise, not to disparage the ideal it tears down.
There's nothing wrong with this picture ... except I wonder how many people get there by stepping on others
Careful, you might slip into socialist class warfare rhetoric.
or through using Enron tactics of cooking the books, etc., etc.,?
If you're really a professional investor, then you know that was just an example of fools and their money being parted. Dumb investment decisions have consequences. When a prospectus says they really can't explain what it is that a company does, and doesn't outline a business plan, steer clear.
Remember the phrase: It's usually not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know.
The people you know have to WANT to help you get ahead, or it doesn't matter who you know, and if helping you doesn't help the business, there will be consequences. The business that avoids cronyism can realize a market advantage. In contrast, NO business can avoid government mandated forms of favoritism, like affirmative action, so the natural checks and balances of the marketplace that control cronyism don't apply.
This is weak and you know it. If all one has is season tickets and travel plans, that's not keeping up with the Joneses.
Actually it is. Vacation one-upsmanship is HUGE. A friend of mine is a travel agent, and it drives his business.
One would have to include getting a better car, better house, better technology
It all depends on the context. Bling can be worn as easily as driven. Sometimes it's not about a better car, but just a more garish one. Take your Civic, add some plastic spinner wheel covers, some undercarriage neon lightiing, a cheap wing, and a pinstriping kit from KMart and in some neighborhoods, you're living large. In some circles, it's all about who has the best season tickets. You need to look beyond the one subset of society your friends/family expect you conform to and see the wide variety of conformist pressures for what they are, and realize you're just conforming to a lower rent definition of bling.
What I said was an objective statement to set up the rest of the paragraph.
Doesn't change the implications of it.
Your self righteous tone is taking everything personal. You've got a mote in your eye, and you can't help it. Control freaks are like that!
I'm taking none of this as personal. I haven't made bold proclamations about myself like you have, so there's no way for it to be personal for me. I also have no desire to control you or anyone else here. I'm just amused at how little of your talk you walk.
(Again) your welcome to your interpretation. To be fair, many of them probably are sheeple.
No, it's a fact - a huge percentage of the unsecured debt in this country is from cruises, sports and concert tickets, and other services whose perceived value is socially driven.
Hell, I eat hamburgers, too, does that make me a sheeple because everyone in the nation eats hamburgers?
Depends - do you ever eat anything that CAN'T be ordered by talking through a fiberglass clown's head?
There's got to be more to the usage than your style over substance ramblings.
Hey, I'm only responding to your grandiose declarations of your own substance over style bona fides. You came in here pounding your chest about what an ubermensch you were - I'm just questioning it. Maybe lemming is a better term.
Smart-ass! How about ... other than the essential provisions, does that satisfy your inflated ego? Read the sentence over. Anyone would be stupid to think I would include the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter as things we don't need. You're being a smart-ass, and you know it.
No, I'm just taking you at face value You talked about what people toil for. Even the lowest level of food and shelter consume a significant percentage of the means of those who purchase them from their own work.
You're becoming quite predictable with your questions. (Who is using the catch phrases and rhetoric now?) I have seen plenty, PLENTY, of people get overlooked who were hard workers.
I've seen firsthand at several corporations, and found few such obstacles. You, by your own claim, disdain that world, so how are you supposed to be an expert on what goes on there?
What these people failed to do was ensconce themselves into the office politics and multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, etc., etc., things that have nothing to do with their character and hard work and the overtime they put in.
Yeah, right. My brother sat in a corporate "diversity" training program and openly heckled and argued with the instructor for a whole week.Nothing happened to him, because he's the most competent person there.
You've heard people's whining and taken it at face value with no direct experience to verify it.
Are there problems of this sort in the world? Sure, but they're not as widespread as you seem to think, and they do not rise to the excuse level you credit them.
What I do see is your panglossian outlook and your anger for people who do not join in your bandwagon of domesticated tranquility and your happy holy grail jamboree.
Far be it from me to interrupt such an amusing tirade, but there are a couple points you might want to consider:
1.I'm not married - if I were, then I would be in the minority. Nor are most of my friends, and I don't say a thing about their status.
2. I'm not angry. I'm amused. Your anger, on the other hand, is palpable in the escalating hostility of your tone. Please don't have a stroke on my account.
And, no, unlike you, I don't spend time watching the "Fight Club" or much of anything else if it's on the boob tube.
But you watched "American Beauty" Hmmmm. Well, you could have written the screenplay from your rhetoric here.
Say hi to Kathy Lee for me when you pass her in the conga line, and enjoy watching other people engage in sports.
anonymous 4:17 said
dweeb i just worked it out, you are a neo communist...you want everyone to act the same. be the same.
Keep working on that reading comprehension thing; you'll figure it out eventually.
How many women are willing to marry and support the unemployed men of society?
Women who work while their husbands don't are very common in some demographics.
And, of course, there's the junior senator from New York.
Chris,
So, I guess there is no reason to think the weenies will spend all that extra time studying math and science rather than playing video games?
Chris,
The vast majority of weenies prefer to be financially supported and pampered by their parents.
Anonymous Said: So, I guess there is no reason to think the weenies will spend all that extra time studying math and science rather than playing video games?
Chris Key Says: The internet is one of the FEW realms that has offered refuge to the young men who prefer to live with their parents. There are a variety of websites and forums on the internet that have been created by young men, and they tend to be based around the discussion of subjects that promote intellectual stimulation.
Women on the other hand, tend to start up blog-sites on free hosts - where they don't need to know anything about HTML - and then they usually talk about their lives and other subjective issues. In fact, this is the FIRST women's blog-site I have ever seen that is owned by a woman who doesn't talk about herself non-stop.
Web-Design is NOT an easy subject to learn, and it DOES require the ability to analyse and interpret data. Even the misandrist web-sites that are designed to accommodate the sadistic mentality of insane women are mostly designed and maintained by men, which shows that even the most rabid feminists do not possess the intelligence and independence that is required to set up a site.
I set up www.mens-rights.net/ back in late 2004, which contains a wealth of objective evidence and information, and not once have I spoken about myself on the entire site. I have yet to find a site that was owned by a woman who didn't dedicate at least one section of it to *herself*.
Anonymous Said: The vast majority of weenies prefer to be financially supported and pampered by their parents.
Chris Key: There are SOME young men who possess the traits of a parasite, however that does not mean that ALL men who live with their parents are parasitic.
The suicide rate among the males who are 25-years-old is higher than any other age-sex demographic; indicating that those persons are suffering from a degree of depression, anxiety and persecution that women have NEVER endured in the Western world.
A study has shown that the boys who are kicked in the groin tend to develop depression and an inability to socialise, therefore perhaps the increase of young men who are living at home is derived from female perpetrated violence.
Boys are raised in a society where they see such images on television on a regular basis, and it DOES affect their self-esteem, as they realise that women can kick them in the groin, and the majority of people will just laugh at their pain and embarrassment.
People are now surprised by the influx of violence that is perpetrated by girls against boys, yet the so called *psychologists* and *Social Workers* are not intelligent enough to realise that the increase of such behaviour is most likely correlated to the media's portrayal of *groin kicking against men* as funny and acceptable.
Women are literally aroused by the thought of seeing a man get kicked in the testicles by a woman - the evidence can be shown in the thousands of BDSM websites and *Ball Busting* sites that contain MANY female visitors - which speaks volumes about their mentality and inability to sympathise with others.
Would women be interested in watching a program that showed men kicking women in the clitoris - an act that is extremely debilitating, painful and humiliating - while the rest of the characters on the program cheered and mocked the misfortune of the recipient of the kick? I think the women and feminists would call that *Sexual Violence*, and demote it as a form of *misogyny*.
The taxes that men are FORCED to pay are collected by the state and redistributed to women through a socialist system, and a very scarce amount of the money is ever spent on men's health or men's issues; even though the majority of persons who are affected by the top ten most deadly illnesses are male. Based on that, how can you expect a man to work when he knows that his money will be taken away him and redistributed to the feminist fiends who are intending to use it to promote an anti-male agenda? Would you be willing to fund a program that promoted misogyny?
So, I guess there is no reason to think the weenies will spend all that extra time studying math and science rather than playing video games?
Let's just say that smart gamblers aren't betting on it.
Web-Design is NOT an easy subject to learn,
Yeah, right. There is no shortage in the world of idiots who are proficient in html but have nothing worthwhile to post. It's child's play.
dweeb said: Yeah, right. There is no shortage in the world of idiots who are proficient in html but have nothing worthwhile to post. It's child's play.
Chris Key Says: Interesting, as your comments tend to be quite subjective and illogical in nature, yet you feel you have some divine *right* to insult the web-designers and men who wish to talk about their problems. The manner in which you have centred your argumentation seems to be based on the usage of straw-man fallacies and ad-hominem insults, which means you have offered little to nothing to the discussion.
You have failed to show any sign of an intelligent or knowledgeable mentality, therefore you're not in any position to berate others who wish to talk about their hardships.
dweeb said: There's nothing inappropriate about shame. Society could use a lot more shame. Of course, shame doesn't feel good, and we all know that to the new age ninnies, feeling good is everything.
Chris Key Said: If you truly believe your prior insinuation, then you will accept the following advice. When a person uses straw-man fallacies and ad-hominem insults as the basis of their argumentation to a subject, then it shows they have an agenda.
Therefore I ask you the following question; are you a neutral spectator or are you just a self-opinionated bigot?
dweeb said: Hasn't done a thing? I just love your contempt for all those who actually strive to provide your comfy little world. So, I suppose you'll be wanting to give back the vaccines, dentistry, antibiotics, electricity, roads, flush toilets, microwave ovens, police and fire protection, housing, hygeine products, and, of course, your only real friend in the world, your precious videogame console.
Chris Key Said: The vast majority of those products and services were invented by men and are STILL maintained by men - NOT WOMEN - therefore how come I haven't heard you say anything to the women who claim that they are *Independent* and *Do Not Need Men For Anything*? Should those women be forced to relinquish such services and products as well, since they were invented and maintained by men, or will you merely say; "that's different, it's a man's duty to support a woman no matter how poorly she treats him".
dweeb said: Also, that whole stock market construct you depend upon for a living.
Chris Key: The feminists and socialists have tried to declare the concept of *capitalism* as a form of *female oppression* and *Patriarchal Power* (not that they have ever used any objective evidence to verify their insane claim); therefore perhaps those women should also be required to relinquish the money that they *depend* upon for survival?
dweeb said: Then we'll be glad to strip you to a loincloth and drop you in a rain forest somewhere, where you can completely free yourself of the detritus of that pesky old social contract. Good luck figuring out how to feed yourself, let alone getting sticks and rocks to let you play Halo 3.
Chris Key: Are you willing to offer the same fate to the feminists and women who claim to be *Strong and Independent Women Who Don't Need Men For Anything*, or will you state; "that's different"?
Chris Key,
Not all women are interested in talking about themselves--there are a number of women who focus on issues--Michelle Malkin, Dr. Sanity, Ann Althouse, Cathy Young, etc. to name a few. And what is wrong with talking about subjective experience at times? I used to feel the same way in grad school. I am a thinker--not a feeler and would get annoyed with people who talked nonstop and gossiped etc. I talked to a professor of psych. about it once and she said, "What is so horrible about talking about yourself?" I thought about it and realized that it did have a role in better human communication etc. I think it is okay to be personal a bit--even on a blog as people want to know something about you. I put up pictures once in a while so people can have a face to go with the blog. I think that is fine--or once in a while, I like to talk about something a bit personal so others feel free to open up. Jung used to do that with patients, he would act vulnerable in some way so that they would feel that they could relate to him. Is something wrong with that? I do understand what you mean about people who go on and on but, a bit of the personal (not for manipulative purposes, of course) helps your audience to better communicate with you.
Movable type and HTML are not hard to use and most people can master it without much trouble--male or female. When Glenn switched from Blogger to Movable type, he barely saw a difference. I may make a similar move at some point, but started on Blogger just because I did not think I would invest much time in blogging but I enjoy it and probably won't quit for a while yet. I took computer science classes in college (it's been a while!) but I am sure that I could pick up whatever I need to know quite easily.
Interesting, as your comments tend to be quite subjective and illogical in nature,
Care to cite where and how?
yet you feel you have some divine *right* to insult the web-designers and men who wish to talk about their problems.
1. I DO have a right. Check out the Constitution some time.
2. I said NOTHING about men who wish to talk about their problems, and NOTHING about web designers in general. I spoke only to your assertion that html is rocket science. There ARE millions of websites created and maintained by idiots with nothing to say; NO ONE said they were the websites you personally are fond of. News flash Chris - it's not always about you and your issues. Some pundit once observed that the existence of 4000 websites devoted to Leonardo DiCapprio is ample evidence that the Internet is far too easy to use. Would those 4000 be part of the "men who wish to talk about their problems" that are your cause celebre?
You have failed to show any sign of an intelligent or knowledgeable mentality, therefore you're not in any position to berate others who wis to talk about their hardships.
Now you're confusing me - weren't you berating all those female bloggers for emoting about all their problems?
If you truly believe your prior insinuation, then you will accept the following advice. When a person uses straw-man fallacies and ad-hominem insults as the basis of their argumentation to a subject, then it shows they have an agenda.
Which ad-hominem insults would those be? Please be specific. They wouldn't be anything like this one:
Therefore I ask you the following question; are you a neutral spectator or are you just a self-opinionated bigot?
Would they? Wow, an accusation of ad hominem, contexted with ad hominem. What'll you think of next?
The vast majority of those products and services were invented by men and are STILL maintained by men - NOT WOMEN
And your point is? Where did I say otherwise? In the statement I was responding to, Knightwatch was talking about SOCIETY, not women. Again, Chris, it's not ALWAYS about you and your crusades.
The feminists and socialists have tried to declare the concept of *capitalism* as a form of *female oppression* and *Patriarchal Power*
Again you ignore context and try to bring it back to your great white whale, those uppity women. Shall we call you Ahab? Keep working on that reading comprehension thing - you'll master it someday.
I sense a common theme in everything you write, and it's raging misogynism. I hate the excesses of feminism as much as anyone, but you take it to the pathological. You are to the men's rights movement as David Duke is to the Republican Party, and you only serve to discredit the entire concept of resistance to gender feminism.
My entire point here has been simple. Yes, there absolutely is institutional misandry in our society. However, it does not constitute a legitimate excuse for a man to spend his adult life hiding out in his parents' basement playing video games. Yes, the whole men-bad/women-good cult started by Phil Donahue makes it harder for a man to get ahead these days. All that means is that the going got tough, and when the going gets tough, the tough do not hide out in their parents' basements nursing their bitterness. They hike themselves up by their bootstraps and get going. Men who opt not to participate because it's harder now are no better than the female professor who swooned upon hearing Larry Summers' comments. I've seen you post numerous times here how SOME women managed to succeed 100 years ago, so what's the big problem? Well, look around, SOME men succeed now. Now, as then, the dominant independent variable is the individual and his/her attitude, and those who use their time and energy to whine about glass ceilings never find the holes in them.
You know what, Chris? All the things you whine about, I've been there, done that, lost the t-shirt. I know all about the feminist machine and how it turned marriage into a way to drag a man's life through the mud, because I lived it. My story would make most of those men's rights bloggers go catatonic, complete with social workers with an agenda, therapists who work only from Laura Davis books, lesbian recruitment, false abuse claims, the whole gamut, but you don't see me hiding in my parents' basement whining about how the world is stacked against me. I lived through it, and got on with my life.
dweeb said: Care to cite where and how?
Chris Key Said: On one occasion you described the act of marriage and family as being *important*, as they don't allow people to be unproductive, however you have failed to acknowledged that the Family Unit has been destroyed by the anti-male laws that currently exist along with feminism. How can you expect the male youth of today to focus their energy into supporting a family when the Family Unit has been destroyed by feminism? The other issue is the fact that the men of today DO NOT have the opportunity that the degenerates had during the 1960's.
During the 1960's, cars and housing were cheap, employment was plentiful and available to a LOT of people, and it was FAR EASIER to support a family during that time. Housing, cars, petrol and food are far more expensive in today's society, and the increasing totalitarian and socialist nature of the state has led to an increase in taxation, therefore it is almost impossible for a family to survive on just a sole wage.
Here is the comment that you made:
- "That's why marriage and a family are important - they don't allow the option of being unproductive."
dweeb said: 1. I DO have a right. Check out the Constitution some time.
Chris Key Said: The American is now citing the American Constitution - a contradictory and hypocritical system that is far more totalitarian and socialist in nature than the English Empire ever was to the European Settlers of USA in the 17th Century - and tried to use it to justify the ignorance he has displayed on the discussion section of this blog.
A review of the ignorance that was displayed by the American can be identified through the following"
dweeb said: 2. I said NOTHING about men who wish to talk about their problems, and NOTHING about web designers in general. I spoke only to your assertion that html is rocket science. There ARE millions of websites created and maintained by idiots with nothing to say; NO ONE said they were the websites you personally are fond of. News flash Chris - it's not always about you and your issues. Some pundit once observed that the existence of 4000 websites devoted to Leonardo DiCapprio is ample evidence that the Internet is far too easy to use. Would those 4000 be part of the "men who wish to talk about their problems" that are your cause celebre?
Chris Key Said: The American has tried to insinuate that web-design is *easy* as he believes it only requires the knowledge of *HTML*, however he has failed to acknowledge that the more complex languages that this blog does not support - as well as the ability to create graphics - are required to set up a world-class website. Any idiot - such as a savage - can learn HTML, however not everyone can understand the most complex languages that exist.
Chris Key never referred to HTML as a form of rocket-science; he merely stated that web-design in itself can be QUITE difficult. If the American believes that HTML is the ONLY language that is used by web-designers, then he really is quite ignorant. A web-designer is a person who works in the industry of publishing websites for customers, and the VAST majority of Web-Design firms will ONLY hire those who are proficient with MANY languages. While a savage might learn the basics of HTML that allow him/her to set up a pathetic *Free Site* on the *Free-Hosts*, that does not mean they are qualified *web-designers*.
dweeb said: Now you're confusing me - weren't you berating all those female bloggers for emoting about all their problems?
Chris Key Said: No. I merely stated that the female bloggers in general tend to be quite narcissistic and talk about their *Personal Lives* and other non-important subjects that are based solely on THEIR DESIRE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION. The men on the blog have discussed the ACTUAL DISCRIMINATION that they have endured due to the anti-male nature of the law system - you have condemned them for doing this - while the women have spoken from the perspective of parasitic savages who are ONLY concerned about the inability of unemployed men to support their materialistic desires.
dweeb said: Which ad-hominem insults would those be? Please be specific.
Chris Key Said: A citation of your comments:
"Waaahhh! they called me names!!! I'm gonna spend my life pouting!"
No, it won't affect real MEN; it will affect arrested adolescents who lack character."
"Maybe because they're societal parasites?"
"Despite the slackers' whining, no one ie persecuting them here."
"Knightwatch, the only difference between your defense of slackerhood and Darren's is that he isn't claiming to be one of them. "
dweeb said: They wouldn't be anything like this one:
Therefore I ask you the following question; are you a neutral spectator or are you just a self-opinionated bigot?
Would they? Wow, an accusation of ad hominem, contexted with ad hominem. What'll you think of next?
Chris Key Said: An ad-hominem insult is when a person attacks the character of their opponent - something you have performed on more than one occasion - while the example you just presented is merely a question I asked of you. I merely provided a citation of your comments and exposed your logical fallacies, and then I asked you whether you're a neutral spectator or a self-opinionated bigot. The asking of a question does not constitute an accusation against another persons character.
dweeb said: And your point is? Where did I say otherwise? In the statement I was responding to, Knightwatch was talking about SOCIETY, not women. Again, Chris, it's not ALWAYS about you and your crusades.
Chris Key Said: The comment was made in response to your claim that the men who are not *working* are therefore *slackers*, as it makes no sense to condemn those type of men when the vast majority of women are guilty of possessing the very same flaw. As I stated above, if you were a neutral spectator, then you would be stating that the men and women who do not working are *slackers*, however you seem to only be highlighting the fact that SOME young men are now deciding to remain unemployed, while you have not condemned the women who are guilty of being *lazy*. Only a person who has an agenda would highlight a flaw of SOME men and say nothing about women when a greater amount of women than men possess that trait.
dweeb said: Again you ignore context and try to bring it back to your great white whale, those uppity women.
Chris Key Said: Another straw-man fallacy has been raised, since you have completely ignored the underlying theory of my comment. The underlying theory of my comment was intended to expose the logical fallacy of your argument:
1. You have constantly referred to the unemployed young men as being *slackers* - you then tried to ridicule one of the posters by telling him that he should live in a rain-forest if he does not wish to subscribe to the current system - yet you failed to acknowledge that the feminists and women have been rebelling against the system for the last 160 years.
2. You have ridiculed the unemployed men who are not working by stating they are social parasites, however you have failed to acknowledge that a LOT of psychologically and physiologically sound women are ALSO living on welfare.
3. You have stated that *real men can overcome problems*, however you have failed to acknowledge that; a) the people you are talking to may possess psychological problems that prevent them from working and b) science has not evolved to the level that all psychological illnesses can be successfully treated.
4. The socialists and communists are the persons who have persecuted the existence of capitalism since 1848, and the feminists and a LOT of women subscribe to Marxism, yet here you are telling the men that they should live in a forest if they do not wish to conform to the current system.
If you're going to condemn the men who rebel against the system, then you need to show some consistency and be just as critical of the physiologically and psychologically sound women who are living on welfare. I notice you have not stated anything about the women who exit the workforce during their 30's and those who use *Pregnancy* as their method of gaining money via *Maternal Leave* while they sit at home, or those who commit *Paternity Fraud*.
dweeb said: Shall we call you Ahab?
Chris Key Said: Again you have attempted to divert attention away from the subject at hand. Since you're talking about what I should be called, I think I know what we can call you - an American savage. The uncouth, ignorant and illogical nature of your arguments is similar to the manner in which a LOT of Americans tend to respond when they hear any form of criticism about the USA.
dweeb said: Keep working on that reading comprehension thing - you'll master it someday.
Chris Key Said: The American Savage has decided to project his own flaws onto others.
dweeb said: I sense a common theme in everything you write, and it's raging misogynism.
Chris Key Said: And so the ad-hominem insults and straw-man fallacies continue. Since when has the citation of male success translated to a form of misogyny? Throughout the discussion you have ridiculed the men who refuse to work, however as soon as I use logic and factual evidence to repudiate your claims, you try to gain the *Moral High Ground* by stating I MUST be a misogynist. Your style of argumentation is identical to that of the insane feminist fiends who perpetually contradict themselves.
A list of the shaming language that is uttered by the American Savage and the Feminist Fiends when they're confronted with factual evidence and logic:
- You're a misogynist.
- You're not a real man.
- Real men can overcome problems.
- You're a crybaby.
dweeb said: I hate the excesses of feminism as much as anyone, but you take it to the pathological. You are to the men's rights movement as David Duke is to the Republican Party, and you only serve to discredit the entire concept of resistance to gender feminism.
Chris Key Said: If you hate the feminists so much, then how come you have adopted their style of argumentation? If you hate the feminists so much, then how come you have failed to acknowledge the evil nature of the Women's Movement which dates back to 1848?
dweeb said: My entire point here has been simple. Yes, there absolutely is institutional misandry in our society. However, it does not constitute a legitimate excuse for a man to spend his adult life hiding out in his parents' basement playing video games. Yes, the whole men-bad/women-good cult started by Phil Donahue makes it harder for a man to get ahead these days. All that means is that the going got tough, and when the going gets tough, the tough do not hide out in their parents' basements nursing their bitterness. They hike themselves up by their bootstraps and get going.
Chris Key Said: The reason that men are avoiding the workforce is due to the following:
i) The implementation of *Affirmative Action* has lead to qualified men being overlooked by women who are usually incompetent and troublesome.
ii) The implementation of *Sexual Harassment Laws* that allow women to use FALSE ACCUSATIONS in order to blackmail their employers and the accused into offering a financial settlement just to silence the malevolent and fraudulent cunts who resort to using such devious tactics.
iii) The men who work long hours tend to suffer from heart-related diseases that shorten their lifespan, and in today's society where men are told that they're *oppressing* women by looking to obtain success within the corporate world, there is no incentive for a man to even enter the industry.
iv) The structure of the Criminal Law and Civil Law allows women to alienate a father from his children and obtain HIS house and HIS money through child support and spousal support (alimony) - then of course there are the women who commit paternity fraud and intentionally seek out the hardest-working men they can find - therefore the act of marrying a woman in today's society can be portrayed as an act of *insane gambling*.
v) The taxes that men pay are collected by the socialist state and redistributed to the feminist agencies that are designed to subjugate men and promote misandry, therefore why would a man want to work when his own money will be used to enforce his curtailment of liberty?
dweeb said: Men who opt not to participate because it's harder now are no better than the female professor who swooned upon hearing Larry Summers' comments.
Chris Key Said: Again, you have contradicted yourself. Before I was labeled a *misogynist* because I used factual evidence to state that:
- Men possess a greater amount of innate ability than women.
- Men have contributed more to society than women.
However you are now stating that I am JUST LIKE THE FEMINIST who ostracised Larry Sommers for stating that men possess a greater amount of innate ability than women.
dweeb said: I've seen you post numerous times here how SOME women managed to succeed 100 years ago, so what's the big problem?
Chris Key Said: The women of the 19th Century were not required to take accountability for their actions, as they were offered Criminal Law Impunity and Civil Law Privilege, therefore they were able to obtain a career WITHOUT the burden of having to act in a responsible manner for the rest of their lives. The men were required to work in order to support; a) themselves, b) the women and c) the children; and they had to take accountability for the criminal acts that were performed by their wives. In other words, women had nothing to lose as they were NOT held accountable for their actions, however the men of today have EVERYTHING to lose if they are falsely accused by a woman.
dweeb said: Well, look around, SOME men succeed now. Now, as then, the dominant independent variable is the individual and his/her attitude, and those who use their time and energy to whine about glass ceilings never find the holes in them.
Chris Key Said: The one thing I have noticed is the men who are MOST likely to succeed in; a) the workforce and b) with women, are those who are indifferent to women and do not care about anyone else but themselves. The men who are shy but empathetic and sympathetic are unable to cope in the workforce, as they are unable to compete with the devious tactics that are used by the *sex-maniacs* who base their lives around the acquisition of wealth and female sexual partners.
Women in general are able to empathise but DO NOT sympathise with men, and this is why women are able to deceive and manipulate the most caring but shy men with the utmost of ease and NOT feel any guilt. Women are attracted to the devious men who deceive the empathetic and sympathetic men of society, and the unemployed men you are talking about are those who are shy and insecure because they were harassed by the other males and females at school. The men you are talking to on this discussion are empathetic and sympathetic persons who WOULD NEVER deceive another man or woman out of their money or job.
dweeb said: You know what, Chris? All the things you whine about, I've been there, done that, lost the t-shirt. I know all about the feminist machine and how it turned marriage into a way to drag a man's life through the mud, because I lived it. My story would make most of those men's rights bloggers go catatonic, complete with social workers with an agenda, therapists who work only from Laura Davis books, lesbian recruitment, false abuse claims, the whole gamut, but you don't see me hiding in my parents' basement whining about how the world is stacked against me. I lived through it, and got on with my life.
Chris Key Said: In other words you are admitting that you were deceived and manipulated by a woman who used the system to her advantage, yet you are now berating the men who are *intelligent* enough to AVOID committing the mistake that YOU made. Just because you were ignorant and conformed to the anti-male system doesn't mean that it's a necessity for ALL men to follow in your footsteps.
Chris Key Said: On one occasion you described the act of marriage and family as being *important*, as they don't allow people to be unproductive, however you have failed to acknowledged that the Family Unit has been destroyed by the anti-male laws that currently exist along with feminism.
Because it hasn't, at least not yet. The family is threatened, but not dead yet. There are still plenty of stable, healthy traditional families. The red states are full of small towns where such families are the norm. Heck, I live in the only municipality in the nation to vote in a domestic partner registry, and I can walk down the street and see dozens of healthy traditional families (of course, you won't see any of them riding in a car between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.- there are entire subcultures that don't buy into postmodern thinking.)
During the 1960's, cars and housing were cheap,
and they still are, to the wise consumer, as both the person I was contending with and I have pointed out. FUNCTIONAL Cars and housing are cheap, but BLING is not. Unfortunately, too many people think they need bling. When sporting event and rock concert tickets and other frivolities sell like hotcakes at the price they currently command, people who whine they can't afford necessities suffer from a lack of priorities, not opportunities.
therefore it is almost impossible for a family to survive on just a sole wage.
Gee, then how do I know so many who manage to do so?
Here is the comment that you made:
And it stands. A single person can be a slacker and get away with it. You can't afford slackerhood when others depend upon you.
Chris Key Said: The American is now citing the American Constitution - a contradictory and hypocritical system that is far more totalitarian and socialist in nature than the English Empire ever was to the European Settlers of USA in the 17th Century
Wow, nothing I can say serves to condemn your intellect more effectively than your own statement here.
Chris Key Said: The American has tried to insinuate that web-design is *easy* as he believes it only requires the knowledge of *HTML*, however he has failed to acknowledge that the more complex languages that this blog does not support - as well as the ability to create graphics - are required to set up a world-class website. Any idiot - such as a savage - can learn HTML, however not everyone can understand the most complex languages that exist.
And here you only display your own ignorance. There is no website authoring technology that is not child's play. "The most complex languages?" You don't know the meaning of complex. There's not a website development language in existence that approaches most mid-level programming languages in difficulty.
Chris Key never referred to HTML as a form of rocket-science; he merely stated that web-design in itself can be QUITE difficult.
Either way, you're objectively wrong.
Chris Key Said: No. I merely stated that the female bloggers in general tend to be quite narcissistic and talk about their *Personal Lives* and other non-important subjects that are based solely on THEIR DESIRE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION.
Oh, as opposed to guys like you who merely air their personal (and largely imagined) grievances.
The men on the blog have discussed the ACTUAL DISCRIMINATION that they have endured due to the anti-male nature of the law system - you have condemned them for doing this
No, I condemn them for wallowing in self pity and opting not to participate in life over it. I condemn their incessant bleating and whining. I condemn anyone who can find nothing better to do about a problem than commiserate.
Chris Key Said: A citation of your comments:
None of which fit the definition of ad hominem. You need to read up on fallacies. I addressed their rhetoric and positions, not their persons.
Chris Key Said: An ad-hominem insult is when a person attacks the character of their opponent
You mean like name-calling them a bigot?
- something you have performed on more than one occasion - while the example you just presented is merely a question I asked of you.
Let's put it this way, what if I AM a bigot - does that in any way address or rebut my rhetoric? No, ergo, it is an ad hominem.
I merely provided a citation of your comments and exposed your logical fallacies,
You've exposed nothing, other than your own poor grasp of what a fallacy is.
and then I asked you whether you're a neutral spectator or a self-opinionated bigot. The asking of a question does not constitute an accusation against another persons character.
Oh, yes, it quite often does. Example - "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Chris Key Said: The comment was made in response to your claim that the men who are not *working* are therefore *slackers*, as it makes no sense to condemn those type of men
It makes perfect sense, REGARDLESS of what women are doing. The objective nature of one's own actions is not dependent upon how many others may also engage in them. Does Jeffery Dahmer get to point to John Wayne Gacy and say "I'm not bad because someone else did the same or worse?" You see, your implication that women's conduct impacts the morality of what men do, that would be a fallacy.
when the vast majority of women are guilty of possessing the very same flaw.
I'd like to see a sound basis for that assertion.
As I stated above, if you were a neutral spectator, then you would be stating that the men and women who do not working are *slackers*, however you seem to only be highlighting the fact that SOME young men are now deciding to remain unemployed,
No, the entire point of this discussion is that this phenomenon is largely confined to men.
while you have not condemned the women who are guilty of being *lazy*.
Because they're not doing it in great numbers. The entire excuse offered by your ilk is that the men can't get ahead because the women are taking all the opportunities. If that's so, then clearly, they're NOT sitting in their parents' basements. You can't have it both ways.
Chris Key Said: 1. You have constantly referred to the unemployed young men as being *slackers* - you then tried to ridicule one of the posters by telling him that he should live in a rain-forest if he does not wish to subscribe to the current system
First of all, it's long since been established that the person I was addressing was NOT a 'slacker' - do try to keep up. I was responding to his total rejection of society characterized by his statement that he had not benefited at all from society.
- yet you failed to acknowledge that the feminists and women have been rebelling against the system for the last 160 years.
I do not acknowledge that which is not true. They have not been rebelling against civilization itself, only certain things within it.
2. You have ridiculed the unemployed men who are not working by stating they are social parasites, however you have failed to acknowledge that a LOT of psychologically and physiologically sound women are ALSO living on welfare.
And so, anything I don't waste space here openly complaining about, I must therefore approve of? You seem to be a walking case study in fallacies, which isn't surprising since you don't understand how to identify any.
Welfare is a separate problem. The number of men and women receiving government assistance is roughly the same. We are discussing here a specific trend that is largely limited to men, so that's what I've been addressing. I suppose I could work it around to the evils of the Federal Reserve system, if I wanted, but unlike you, I prefer to stay with the topic.
3. You have stated that *real men can overcome problems*, however you have failed to acknowledge that; a) the people you are talking to may possess psychological problems that prevent them from working
Here we go - "Dear Officer Krupke......"
and b) science has not evolved to the level that all psychological illnesses can be successfully treated.
Actually, so-called 'science' is too busy making up psychological illnesses to serve as excuses for every bad behavior.
Chris Key Said: And so the ad-hominem insults and straw-man fallacies continue.
Still haven't grasped what an ad hominem is? Don't worry, keep trying, you'll get it someday.
A list of the shaming language that is uttered by the American Savage and the Feminist Fiends when they're confronted with factual evidence and logic:
It's so amusing when you start to sound just like the leftists and feminists you claim to despise. "Shaming language" - I can't stop laughing.
- You're a misogynist.
No, your rhetoric drips with misogyny."
- You're not a real man/ you're a crybaby.
Never said that about you, but if YOU think the shoe fits.....
- Real men can overcome problems.
As evidenced by the fact that they do so all the time. Human history is the story of overcoming problems.
Chris Key Said: If you hate the feminists so much, then how come you have adopted their style of argumentation?
ME?
Let's look at your style -
- new age psychobabble - "shaming language" - check.
-claims of widespread persecution - check.
-assertion of victim status - check.
-accusations of bigotry - check
-claim that simple technology is hard - check.
Pretty much every tactic I've ever encountered in contending with a militant gender feminist.
If you hate the feminists so much, then how come you have failed to acknowledge the evil nature of the Women's Movement which dates back to 1848?
I don't hate them - I disagree with them, but I don't allow it to rise to the emotionally lathered level you do. (Oh by the way, that substitution of emotional intensity for logic that you've been doing - that's another thing they like to do.)
Chris Key Said: The reason that men are avoiding the workforce is due to the following:
i) The implementation of *Affirmative Action* has lead to qualified men being overlooked by women who are usually incompetent and troublesome.
"The only legitimate answer to prejudice is excellence." - Martin Luther King, Jr. That knife cuts both ways.
ii) The implementation of *Sexual Harassment Laws* that allow women to use FALSE ACCUSATIONS in order to blackmail their employers and the accused into offering a financial settlement just to silence the malevolent and fraudulent cunts who resort to using such devious tactics.
First, I want to commend you on your profanity - the last resort of the verbally inept. The harassment statutes are not a problem for those who understand them. Millions of men manage to avoid such entanglements every day.
iii) The men who work long hours tend to suffer from heart-related diseases that shorten their lifespan,
Cry me a river. Just put down the Big Mac and try exercising. Any idea how long men worked in an agrarian society while the womenfolk kept 'their place' in the home?
and in today's society where men are told that they're *oppressing* women by looking to obtain success within the corporate world, there is no incentive for a man to even enter the industry.
I guess some men only hear what they want. All those guys on the cover of Forbes, Fortune, and BusinessWeek must live in a different universe, or maybe they just didn't get your memo.
iv) The structure of the Criminal Law and Civil Law allows women to alienate a father from his children and obtain HIS house and HIS money through child support and spousal support (alimony) - then of course there are the women who commit paternity fraud and intentionally seek out the hardest-working men they can find - therefore the act of marrying a woman in today's society can be portrayed as an act of *insane gambling*.
Like any other investment/gamble, you can choose where and how to bet, and your odds are largely a function of how wisely you make your choices. I don't know any divorced guys with half a brain who can't see how they made stupid decisions leading up to their current situation. As for paternity, there's nothing they can do to you if you keep it in your pants.
v) The taxes that men pay are collected by the socialist state and redistributed to the feminist agencies that are designed to subjugate men and promote misandry, therefore why would a man want to work when his own money will be used to enforce his curtailment of liberty?
Gee, Chris, if life is so bad, why don't you just off yourself? Clearly, it's not worth living any more. Silly me, here I was living a happy life, enjoying the fruits of my own labors and all. How could I have been so blind? Where can I get a couple hundred sleeping pills so I can do the right thing?
However you are now stating that I am JUST LIKE THE FEMINIST who ostracised Larry Sommers for stating that men possess a greater amount of innate ability than women.
Are you really this dense? It has nothing to do with your or her position on any issue. It has to do with your, and her, response to any condition contrary to your preferences. Both of you, upon the first inkling that the world might not be just the way you want it, opt to go weak in the knees and retire from the field. She thinks swooning and nausea are a valid response to conditions contray to preference, you think hiding in Mommy's basement is a valid response. She opts for, and you advocate, a cry, run, hide approach to conflict and adversity. Some of us seem to be made of heartier stock, and manage to come out ahead despite non-ideal circumstances. If you're waiting for the world to be perfect before you'll participate, you're going to have a LOOOONG wait.
Chris Key Said: The women of the 19th Century were not required to take accountability for their actions, as they were offered Criminal Law Impunity and Civil Law Privilege,
Tell that to Lizzy Borden. Women were hanged in the 19th century.
however the men of today have EVERYTHING to lose if they are falsely accused by a woman.
Have you ever BEEN falsely accused? I have, and yet you're the one who wants to cower in the cellar. Ironic, isn't it?
Chris Key Said: The one thing I have noticed is the men who are MOST likely to succeed in; a) the workforce and b) with women, are those who are indifferent to women and do not care about anyone else but themselves.
You don't get out much, do you? Either that or you're not very observant. I also wonder about what your definition of success with women is.
and the unemployed men you are talking about are those who are shy and insecure because they were harassed by the other males and females at school.
Then they need to get over it. You think I didn't receive my share in school? HA!! Anytime those memories bother me, I go down to the 7-11 or Taco Bell to see the jocks who called me names and picked on me behind the counter.
The men you are talking to on this discussion are empathetic and sympathetic persons who WOULD NEVER deceive another man or woman out of their money or job.
You really can't say that with any authority. Life is about competition. I guess some people can't take the heat. The funny thing is, I've done more than well enough, even though I'm not competitive. I've even offered to take a pay cut to prevent the layoff of a colleague who was in debt and had a family. I buy stuff for people I know who need it and can't afford it. Yet, I am more than comfortable, with more grown up 'toys' than are good for me. How DO I manage in this feminazi world? It must be that self portrait in my attic that keeps looking older and older, or my diploma from Hogwarts, eh?
Chris Key Said: In other words you are admitting that you were deceived and manipulated by a woman
No, I made a stupid choice of a woman whose approach to life was remarkably similar to yours, and when she had problems, she turned to people like you who think victimhood is the answer to everything.
who used the system to her advantage,
Yes, but the system also manipulated her.
yet you are now berating the men who are *intelligent* enough to AVOID committing the mistake that YOU made.
Not at all. They are free to never marry; I'm talking about earning a living. Furthermore, the mistake lies not in marrying, but in WHO one marries. Your approach is like deciding that because people get in accidents, one should never drive.
Hey, if you want to wallow in self pity and victimhood, that's OK - it just means there's more out there for me. However, you might just want to take a look at your birth certificate, and see if you can find where it guarantees life will be fair. Life has NEVER been fair, for almost anyone. There are people who fold with when the initial deal doesn't give them a royal flush, and there are people who win the whole hand on a pair of two's. You can't change the cards, you can only change how you play them, and if you're just going to fold, then your ante is just more for me. I guess some people would rather just nurse their grievances than try to overcome them. That's sad.
ii) The implementation of *Sexual Harassment Laws* that allow women to use FALSE ACCUSATIONS in order to blackmail their employers and the accused into offering a financial settlement just to silence the malevolent and fraudulent cunts who resort to using such devious tactics.
There are Chris's paranoid fears, and then there's reality:
Ohh yes it's SUCH a minefield, so dangerous you dare not even get a job. Today our team manager reminded us of our off-site meeting tomorrow - it's a lunch outing, and it's a surprise where he's taking us. We just hired the first female member of our team, and one guy joked that her presence precluded certain destinations (that we would never ACTUALLY go to) for the off site meeting. Our manager laughed, looked her straight in the eye, and said, "On the contrary, it's HER job to bring the one dollar bils." No problem - you just need to be able to read people. Of course, that's an interpersonal skill you don't develop playing video games in Mommy's basement.
dweeb Said: Because it hasn't, at least not yet. The family is threatened, but not dead yet. There are still plenty of stable, healthy traditional families. The red states are full of small towns where such families are the norm. Heck, I live in the only municipality in the nation to vote in a domestic partner registry, and I can walk down the street and see dozens of healthy traditional families (of course, you won't see any of them riding in a car between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.- there are entire subcultures that don't buy into postmodern thinking.)
Chris Key Said: While a simpleton might believe the drivel you have just written, anyone who possesses an average IQ will be able to see that you're repressing the truth of the situation:
- Women are able to commit adultery with impunity - due to No-Fault Divorce Laws - and STILL gain their husband's house and money during the instance of a divorce.
- Women are able to ruin a marriage by making FALSE claims of domestic violence and child abuse - due to VAWA - and even if the accusations are proven to be false, they can still be used to grant custodial access of the children to the mother.
Do you really think that a sane and intelligent man would enter a marriage with the knowledge that his wife can end cause his eviction from the household by making a false accusation? All across the nation of *USA* the feminazi's and the women are complaining about the *Marriage Strike* that the men have decided to perform, and that shows that marriage in the USA at least is struggling. Look at the fertility rate of the Western world, and you will see that the so called *families* are struggling to produce enough children to sustain a stable population, and that means that families are unable to afford the costs of having more than 2 children. The amount of *Single Mother Households* are increasing, and there is an increase of child-bearers who DO NOT KNOW how to raise children.
dweeb Said: and they still are, to the wise consumer, as both the person I was contending with and I have pointed out. FUNCTIONAL Cars and housing are cheap, but BLING is not. Unfortunately, too many people think they need bling. When sporting event and rock concert tickets and other frivolities sell like hotcakes at the price they currently command, people who whine they can't afford necessities suffer from a lack of priorities, not opportunities.
Chris Key Said: Over the last 10 years the price of petrol in Australia has almost doubled, and real estate is almost 3 to 4 times more expensive than it was during the 80's in this part of the world. Rates are extremely high as is rent, and insurance for cars is unaffordable for MOST people. If I wanted to buy a small and old house at present - even a real shitbox-of-a-thing - I would have to spend at least $140,000, then I would have to pay rates. In order to earn the money to pay off such a loan, I would need to work full-time for the next 20-30 years, and eventually I would probably pay twice as much as the original price in interest. During the 1960's the housing was quite cheap - around $40,000 - and it was quite easy for a young man to purchase a house and have it paid off within a couple of years.
dweeb Said: Gee, then how do I know so many who manage to do so?
Chris Key Said: Did those persons exit their parents houses at the age of 18, and buy their own housees and cars with the money they were earning, or did they obtain help from their parents and live with other people during the process? I have never met a single person in today's society who was able to start with $0 and move out of home at the age of 18 and own a house and car and be able to support a family by the time he was 25.
dweeb Said: And it stands. A single person can be a slacker and get away with it. You can't afford slackerhood when others depend upon you.
Chris Key Said: Correction: WOMEN can be parasitic and self-centred in nature and rest assured that the majority of people will not even begin to question their behaviour, as society offers immense privilege and impunity to women. A lot of women in today's society wish to be *house-wives*, however they DEMAND that a professional cleaner be hired - and paid for by their husbands - to perform all the housework, and that is an indication that women are just as irresponsible and unreliable as the young men that you are condemning.
This is supposed to be the age of *equality*, that means all demographics should be treated *equally*, therefore why should men be required to nurture others while women are allowed the *option* of leading the lifestyle of a materialistic parasite? Are you able to comprehend that the male youth of today are unwilling to accept the contradictory nature of today's women and are refusing to support a system that subjugates men, or do you EXPECT the male youth to enslave themselves so that you can obtain a nice pension when you enter old-age?
dweeb Said: Wow, nothing I can say serves to condemn your intellect more effectively than your own statement here.
Chris Key Said: And so the American savage has shown just how ignorant and unintelligent he really is, as he doesn't even understand the history of his very own nation. Thankfully, there is an extremely intelligent American who DOES possess a rather extensive knowledge of his nation, and his name is Carey Roberts.
A Citation From One of Carey Roberts Articles:
Carey Roberts Said - "Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago, an intrepid group of men came together to make the ultimate life-altering decision: to dissolve the political bonds that held the 13 American colonies under the subjugation of King George III.
But England's dictatorial treatment of the colonists was mild in comparison to what the modern-day tyrants have in mind, those who advocate a "living, breathing Constitution," an ever-expanding role of government, the diminution of national sovereignty, and the phasing-out of the traditional family.
This utopian vision comes to you compliments of, who else? — the radical Left." - http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050703
dweeb Said: Because it hasn't, at least not yet. The family is threatened, but not dead yet. There are still plenty of stable, healthy traditional families. The red states are full of small towns where such families are the norm. Heck, I live in the only municipality in the nation to vote in a domestic partner registry, and I can walk down the street and see dozens of healthy traditional families (of course, you won't see any of them riding in a car between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.- there are entire subcultures that don't buy into postmodern thinking.)
Chris Key Said: While a simpleton might believe the drivel you have just written, anyone who possesses an average IQ will be able to see that you're repressing the truth of the situation:
- Women are able to commit adultery with impunity - due to No-Fault Divorce Laws - and STILL gain their husband's house and money during the instance of a divorce.
- Women are able to ruin a marriage by making FALSE claims of domestic violence and child abuse - due to VAWA - and even if the accusations are proven to be false, they can still be used to grant custodial access of the children to the mother.
Do you really think that a sane and intelligent man would enter a marriage with the knowledge that his wife can end cause his eviction from the household by making a false accusation? All across the nation of *USA* the feminazi's and the women are complaining about the *Marriage Strike* that the men have decided to perform, and that shows that marriage in the USA at least is struggling. Look at the fertility rate of the Western world, and you will see that the so called *families* are struggling to produce enough children to sustain a stable population, and that means that families are unable to afford the costs of having more than 2 children. The amount of *Single Mother Households* are increasing, and there is an increase of child-bearers who DO NOT KNOW how to raise children.
dweeb Said: and they still are, to the wise consumer, as both the person I was contending with and I have pointed out. FUNCTIONAL Cars and housing are cheap, but BLING is not. Unfortunately, too many people think they need bling. When sporting event and rock concert tickets and other frivolities sell like hotcakes at the price they currently command, people who whine they can't afford necessities suffer from a lack of priorities, not opportunities.
Chris Key Said: Over the last 10 years the price of petrol in Australia has almost doubled, and real estate is almost 3 to 4 times more expensive than it was during the 80's in this part of the world. Rates are extremely high as is rent, and insurance for cars is unaffordable for MOST people. If I wanted to buy a small and old house at present - even a real shitbox-of-a-thing - I would have to spend at least $140,000, then I would have to pay rates. In order to earn the money to pay off such a loan, I would need to work full-time for the next 20-30 years, and eventually I would probably pay twice as much as the original price in interest. During the 1960's the housing was quite cheap - around $40,000 - and it was quite easy for a young man to purchase a house and have it paid off within a couple of years.
dweeb Said: Gee, then how do I know so many who manage to do so?
Chris Key Said: Did those persons exit their parents houses at the age of 18, and buy their own housees and cars with the money they were earning, or did they obtain help from their parents and live with other people during the process? I have never met a single person in today's society who was able to start with $0 and move out of home at the age of 18 and own a house and car and be able to support a family by the time he was 25.
dweeb Said: And it stands. A single person can be a slacker and get away with it. You can't afford slackerhood when others depend upon you.
Chris Key Said: Correction: WOMEN can be parasitic and self-centred in nature and rest assured that the majority of people will not even begin to question their behaviour, as society offers immense privilege and impunity to women. A lot of women in today's society wish to be *house-wives*, however they DEMAND that a professional cleaner be hired - and paid for by their husbands - to perform all the housework, and that is an indication that women are just as irresponsible and unreliable as the young men that you are condemning.
This is supposed to be the age of *equality*, that means all demographics should be treated *equally*, therefore why should men be required to nurture others while women are allowed the *option* of leading the lifestyle of a materialistic parasite? Are you able to comprehend that the male youth of today are unwilling to accept the contradictory nature of today's women and are refusing to support a system that subjugates men, or do you EXPECT the male youth to enslave themselves so that you can obtain a nice pension when you enter old-age?
dweeb Said: Wow, nothing I can say serves to condemn your intellect more effectively than your own statement here.
Chris Key Said: And so the American savage has shown just how ignorant and unintelligent he really is, as he doesn't even understand the history of his very own nation. Thankfully, there is an extremely intelligent American who DOES possess a rather extensive knowledge of his nation, and his name is Carey Roberts.
A Citation From One of Carey Roberts Articles:
Carey Roberts Said - "Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago, an intrepid group of men came together to make the ultimate life-altering decision: to dissolve the political bonds that held the 13 American colonies under the subjugation of King George III.
But England's dictatorial treatment of the colonists was mild in comparison to what the modern-day tyrants have in mind, those who advocate a "living, breathing Constitution," an ever-expanding role of government, the diminution of national sovereignty, and the phasing-out of the traditional family.
This utopian vision comes to you compliments of, who else? — the radical Left." - http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050703
dweeb Said: And here you only display your own ignorance. There is no website authoring technology that is not child's play. "The most complex languages?" You don't know the meaning of complex. There's not a website development language in existence that approaches most mid-level programming languages in difficulty.
Chris Key Said: So if I were to ask you to develop a website that contained an extensive amount of Javascript, CSS, Perl, Flash, and to ensure that the layout consisted of fixed graphics - of the curved nature - that filled the screen of ALL screen resolutions and functioned on ALL web-browsers, would you be able to create such a domain? I very much doubt it.
dweeb Said: Either way, you're objectively wrong.
Chris Key Said: The prove it blowhard. Go on, see if you can replicate the layout I use on MY site - using your own graphics of course - and prove that it's easy to produce a website. Failure to complete this task will show that you're not competent enough to build a website and that NOT EVERYONE is able to understand web-design. I am not even a professional web-designer, as I never learned Javascript or Perl, however I seriously doubt you could replicate a site like mine. Here's my site - http://www.mens-rights.net
dweeb Said: Oh, as opposed to guys like you who merely air their personal (and largely imagined) grievances.
Chris Key Said: The American Savage has resorted to using lies as he cannot repudiate my argument. Chris Key does not bother to share personal details about his life on a regular basis, and if he does, he usually talks about a situation that is correlated to the subject at hand. Chris Key uses objective evidence and offers a citation of statistical data to verify his claims, while the American Savage uses unverifiable accusations such as stating he *knows* people who have performed certain acts when he is asked to substantiate his insinuations.
dweeb Said: No, I condemn them for wallowing in self pity and opting not to participate in life over it. I condemn their incessant bleating and whining. I condemn anyone who can find nothing better to do about a problem than commiserate.
Chris Key Said: Problems cannot be solved until they are identified and acknowledged by the populace. The state has held public forums for hundreds of years, as it allows people to discuss their concerns about any issue that has affected them. The act of repressing one's problems usually leads to the worsening of such issues, as can be identified by persons who suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (I know, as I have suffered from severe Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder since I was 5).
Perhaps the men wouldn't be complaining about the misandry that they endure if society were willing to listen to their complaints and offer them help. Men in general who are discriminated against are RIDICULED and IGNORED by the populace, and this is one of the reasons as to why a LOT of men are NO LONGER willing to participate within the workforce. If you were a logical and sane person, then you would understand that the shunning and subjugation of a demographic will lead to their rebellion, and they will develop a hatred that is so intense that they will NEVER wish to offer a helping hand to those who have oppressed them.
dweeb Said: None of which fit the definition of ad hominem. You need to read up on fallacies. I addressed their rhetoric and positions, not their persons.
Chris Key Said: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity below)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem
You tried to insinuate that the complaints that have been made by the men on this discussion are *imagined* and *untrue*, as you claimed that a *real man* would not be affected by such issues, and that in itself is an *ad-hominem abusive* as; (i) you have FAILED to identify the characteristics of a *real man*, (ii) you have FAILED to prove that a real man would ALWAYS be able to over come such hurdles and (iii) you are attacking the character of your opponents and trying to portray to imply that they're *NOT* men*. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem#Ad_hominem_abusive
Here are the comments that you made:
"Waaahhh! they called me names!!! I'm gonna spend my life pouting!"
No, it won't affect real MEN; it will affect arrested adolescents who lack character."
"Maybe because they're societal parasites?"
dweeb Said: You mean like name-calling them a bigot?
Chris Key Said: I never called you a bigot: I merely asked you to clarify whether you are or not a bigot. In order for my comment to qualify as an ad-hominem insult, I would need to have called you a bigot, however I NEVER DID.
dweeb Said: Let's put it this way, what if I AM a bigot - does that in any way address or rebut my rhetoric? No, ergo, it is an ad hominem.
Chris Key Said: Incorrect. The question I asked of you was completely separate to my repudiation of your argument. Now, IF you are a bigot, then it shows that your rhetoric COULD - as can be documented by the fact you refuse to condemn the lazy women of society who outnumber the lazy men- be biased and therefore invalid.
dweeb Said: You've exposed nothing, other than your own poor grasp of what a fallacy is.
Chris Key Said: I have exposed the logical fallacies of your arguments, as I have used objective evidence to prove that your claims are bigoted and illogical. As you can see by the above paragraphs, I have shown that you do NOT understand the definition of an *Ad-Hominem Argument*, which shows that you're unaware of the definition of a *logical fallacy*.
dweeb Said: Oh, yes, it quite often does. Example - "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Chris Key Said: The question I asked did not imply that you had been bigoted in any way; it merely asked you if you WERE a bigot. Your example has no correlation to the question that I asked.
dweeb Said: It makes perfect sense, REGARDLESS of what women are doing. The objective nature of one's own actions is not dependent upon how many others may also engage in them. Does Jeffery Dahmer get to point to John Wayne Gacy and say "I'm not bad because someone else did the same or worse?" You see, your implication that women's conduct impacts the morality of what men do, that would be a fallacy.
Chris Key Said: Incorrect. You are attacking the character of these men and refusing to accept that they have a legitimate reason for leading such a lifestyle, and that in itself is a sign that you have an agenda. If you truly were concerned about the men and were looking to understand their situation, then you would NOT have attacked their character, and you would have offered them the same amount of leverage that is provided to women.
dweeb Said: I'd like to see a sound basis for that assertion.
Chris Key Said: As can be verified by the following facts:
- Men in general tend to work LONGER hours than women,
- Women in general tend to exit the workforce during their 30's, while men usually stay with the same employer for many years.
- Quite a few women have committed paternity fraud.
- There are many single mothers who fall pregnant on purpose just to obtain the Single Mothers Pension.
- There are many women who marry wealthy men with the intention of inheriting the wealth of their husbands through the act of divorce.
- Men in general are more likely than women to support their family.
- A review of the following statistics will verify my claims: http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm
dweeb Said: No, the entire point of this discussion is that this phenomenon is largely confined to men.
Chris Key Said: In regards to the total amount of hours that are performed by male and female employees, men tend to work far harder than women. Just because the male youth are refusing to work doesn't mean that the majority of the unemployed are male.
dweeb Said: Because they're not doing it in great numbers. The entire excuse offered by your ilk is that the men can't get ahead because the women are taking all the opportunities. If that's so, then clearly, they're NOT sitting in their parents' basements. You can't have it both ways.
Chris Key Said: Incorrect. Men in general are working longer hours than women, and the most physically demanding and hazardous industries are dominated by male employees, therefore your claim that a greater amount of men are lazier than women is a fallacy. Women are able to avoid having to work by falling pregnant and collecting welfare, or by marrying a man who will support them, and these are options that allow them to avoid criticism for being lazy. The young men of society have learned that there are women who are willing to exploit the system that offers women MORE rights and privilege than men, so those men have decided to NOT support that system.
The complaint that has been offered by the Men's Movement is not that women are taking all the opportunities, but that the opportunities are GIVEN to women AHEAD of men through concepts such as Affirmative Action. State-enforced quotas are also another reason as to why women are gaining employment and University enrollment ahead of men, and that is the complaint that has been offered by the Men's Movement.
On an unrelated note, why do you assume that the unemployed men MUST be sitting in their parents *basements*? A lot of houses in Australia DO NOT even contain any basements, therefore your generalisation is a logical fallacy, as you're so ignorant you cannot understand that the culture is not upheld by the entire global population.
dweeb Said: First of all, it's long since been established that the person I was addressing was NOT a 'slacker' - do try to keep up. I was responding to his total rejection of society characterized by his statement that he had not benefited at all from society. I do not acknowledge that which is not true. They have not been rebelling against civilization itself, only certain things within it.
Chris Key Said: You seem to possess a very poor knowledge of the history of feminism. The so called *issues* that the early feminists-socialists in 1848 were complaining about were non-existent, and they merely used those claims as their way of enforcing their own agenda (as you can see by viewing the following link http://www.mens-rights.net/commentary/chriskey/2006-01-23.htm). The feminists have rebelled against civilisation by trying to enforce the concept of *gender*, which is in total opposition to the fact that the two sexes are DIFFERENT. The feminists have tried to insinuate that the very structure of *Human Civilisation* is *misogynist* in nature, therefore how on Earth can you claim that they're not *rebelling against civilisation*.
Dweeb wrote: "Of course, that's an interpersonal skill you don't develop playing video games in Mommy's basement."
Dweeb, you seem to have a very unsophisticated, parochial view of the world, and a very stereotyped view of young men. For example, most countries around the world don't typically even have basements in their houses these days.
The average house price here in the UK is now £180,000 (thats just over $300,000 - a third of a million dollars). Now, thats just a national AVERAGE. In many regions the prices are higher. And that doesn't take into account the high taxes and general high cost of living, such as the high taxes that one has to pay to the local authorities each year (on top of income tax, VAT etc etc).
Equally, new graduates in the last decade have found that degrees have been massively devalued due to the flooding of more people than ever onto undergraduate courses, yet the fact that many previously graduate-level jobs have been automated or moved to Asian or Eastern European countries. The continued exponential increase in computing power over the coming decades could continue this trend beyond what most people today can even imagine. Its possible that mid-century there will be hardly any jobs left in the West in the way that we understand them now.
I'm not saying that it is impossible to start ones own business, buy property, make a good middle class living etc, but it just takes a lot more time and effort for those starting out today than those who started - for example - in the 1960s.
In most of the world, and throughout most of history families stuck together. You should take a look outside of the little bubble you live in.
dweeb Said: And so, anything I don't waste space here openly complaining about, I must therefore approve of? You seem to be a walking case study in fallacies, which isn't surprising since you don't understand how to identify any.
Chris Key Says: The American Savage has once again projected his own insanity and ignorance upon those who are intellectually superior to him. The American Savage has contradicted himself on numerous occasions, as he has continuously used Straw-man fallacies and Ad-Hominem arguments as the basis of his rhetoric - he even failed to identify the actual definition of the latter when he was confronted about his incessant usage of the tactic - and he continues to make unfounded generalisations that are based on his own deluded mentality rather than actual reality.
The American Savage has tried to insinuate that I must be claiming that he approves of the unemployed women since he failed to acknowledge their existence, which shows that he is unable to comprehend the underlying theory of my comment. The American Savage has based his entire argument around the effect that the unemployed young men will have on the economy (he uses this to justify the Ad-Hominem arguments that he uses against such men), however he is not perceptive enough to understand the logical fallacies of his argument:
1. - IF he was truly concerned about the the state of the economy, then he would have acknowledged that the VAST MAJORITY of the fields that are required to sustain an industrialised civilisation are dominated by male employees and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN; therefore wouldn't that suggest that men have been carrying society?
2. - IF the American Savage is truly concerned about the state of the economy, then he would NOT be viewing the situation from an ignorant perspective in which he blames the problems on just the ONE demographic (young males) while he refuses to acknowledge that women are also the cause of the crisis. How can the situation be resolved when the focus is being placed on just the one demographic and not the others who are also guilty of problem?
3. - If the American Savage is concerned about the issue, then he would be looking to condemn ALL of the parties who are responsible for it's existence, and not just trying to ostracise the male demographic while he ignores the actions (or lack of them) from the female demographic. It shows that his concerns are not derived from the state of the economy, but based on an opinion that is bigoted.
dweeb Said: Welfare is a separate problem. The number of men and women receiving government assistance is roughly the same. We are discussing here a specific trend that is largely limited to men, so that's what I've been addressing. I suppose I could work it around to the evils of the Federal Reserve system, if I wanted, but unlike you, I prefer to stay with the topic.
Chris Key Said: The problem is you are NOT discussing the actual subject at hand; you are merely using Ad-Hominem arguments and Straw-man fallacies to promote your own agenda. If you were willing to discuss the problem from a neutral perspective, then you wouldn't be demonising the male youth and trying to *shame* them into conforming to your self-centred demands - something that a socialist-feminist would do - and you would be looking to understand the derivation of the issue so that it can be corrected.
There seems to be a distinctive pattern within your argumentation:
1. You claim that misandry DOES exist and that there is an anti-male system.
2. Then you tell the male youth to IGNORE the anti-male system and the *feminist-machine* which can cause them to lose their money (in other words they should pretend it doesn't exist?) and continue to work.
3. You then try to claim that *real men* would not be bothered by such discrimination, which is basically saying it DOES exist but men should just IGNORE it.
4. You refuse to acknowledge the current state of the economy and taxation system and try to insinuate that things are just the way they were during the 1960's, which shows that you're unaware of the world around you and DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
dweeb Said: Here we go - "Dear Officer Krupke......"
Chris Key Says: Yet another Ad-Hominem argument.
dweeb Said: Actually, so-called 'science' is too busy making up psychological illnesses to serve as excuses for every bad behavior.
Chris Key Says: Again the American Savage has used an Ad-Hominem argument, because he has failed to repudiate the claim that many psychological illnesses cannot be successfully treated, which shows that his insinuation is a logical fallacy. These are the type of tactics that are utilised by those who have agenda and cannot successfully refute the argument of their opponent.
dweeb Said: Still haven't grasped what an ad hominem is? Don't worry, keep trying, you'll get it someday.
Chris Key Says: One gets the impression that the American Savage is suffering from clinically insanity, as he continues to perform the same action on a repetitive basis in hope of obtaining a different result; he fails to learn from his mistakes. The American Savage has failed to comprehend the actual definition of an Ad-Hominem argument as it defined at the following site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem, which shows that he does not understand it's actual meaning.
dweeb Said: It's so amusing when you start to sound just like the leftists and feminists you claim to despise. "Shaming language" - I can't stop laughing.
Chris Key Says: The American Savage has just contradicted himself, as he lauded the very act of *Shaming Language* and condoned it's usage against the male youth who are unemployed.
Here is a citation of the comment that was made by the American Savage:
"There's nothing inappropriate about shame. Society could use a lot more shame. Of course, shame doesn't feel good, and we all know that to the new age ninnies, feeling good is everything."
dweeb Said: No, your rhetoric drips with misogyny.
Chris Key Says: Since when has the citation of objective evidence correlated to misandry? The comments I have made about women are substantiated and verifiable, therefore they DO NOT qualify as *hate-speech*. A feminist or *leftist* as you described them would decry the act of discussing the negative aspects of female behaviour as a form of *hate-speech*, therefore you have only confirmed my point that you argue like a feminist.
dweeb Said: Never said that about you, but if YOU think the shoe fits
Chris Key Says: I never stated that you said it about me, therefore how did you come to such an insinuation? I merely stated that you have engaged in a form of behaviour that is performed by feminists; trying to emasculate the men who do not conform to socialism.
dweeb Said: As evidenced by the fact that they do so all the time. Human history is the story of overcoming problems.
Chris Key Says: What about all those men who have been bankrupted and imprisoned due to the false accusations that were uttered by evil women? How can they claim to have overcome the *crisis* when they're sitting in a jail cell and will struggle to gain employment due to the fact they are given a criminal record? What about all those men who are required to work 2 or more jobs while they are living in poverty just so they can make the outrageous child support and spousal support payments that they were ordered to adhere to, have they overcome the *crisis* or are they living a miserable life that offers nothing but misery?
The male youth of today are far more intelligent than you, as they realise that they COULD spend 5-10 years of their lives at University - and spend about $30,000-$100,000 in tuition during the process - only to be falsely accused by a vindictive woman when they are at work or at home, and they can then lose everything they have worked for.
The other problem with your argument is you're trying to insinuate that a man HAS to work and obtain financial success in order to be classified as a *man*, and it is that very stereotype that renders your concerns as *illogical*. Human laws and capitalism are NOT enforced by nature, therefore the act of gaining financial wealth does not mean a person has successfully completed his evolutionary requirements.
One man is nothing in comparison to a socialist state that has the power to seize his property and place him in prison, which means that a malevolent shrew can ruin his life by falsely accusing him of a crime that he NEVER committed. The socialist state offers women a great deal of Civil Law Privilege and Criminal Law Exemption, and women have been using it to their advantage for hundreds of years. Proof of this can be acknowledged by viewing the following site - http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/Belfort_Bax.html
dweed Said: ME?
Let's look at your style -
- new age psychobabble - "shaming language" - check.
-claims of widespread persecution - check.
-assertion of victim status - check.
-accusations of bigotry - check
-claim that simple technology is hard - check.
Pretty much every tactic I've ever encountered in contending with a militant gender feminist.
Chris Key Says: The American Savage has tried to insinuate that I think *simple technology* is hard , which is actually a form of libel as I never made such a statement. In regards to *simple technology*, I have mastered everything that I have ever come across, and I am sure I know far more than the American Savage about electronics. The American Savage likes to claim that HTML is easy to learn, however he himself has failed to show any knowledge of the language, which speaks volumes about his ability (or lack of it) to understand the technology.
Feminists DO NOT defend women's rights; they merely demand that women be offered privilege and power over men. Therefore I ask the following question:
Since when has the act of defending one's rights been considered a form of *feminist behaviour*?
If a man is physiologically assaulted and reports the incident to the police, does that mean that he has engaged in *feminist behaviour*? Of course not, therefore the insinuation that the defense of one's right is a form of *feminist behaviour* is a logical fallacy.
The American Savage claims that the accusation of bigotry is a form of *feminist behaviour* - another form of libel on his behalf - however he has failed to acknowledge that I merely ASKED him if he was a bigot. The American Savage has once again contradicted himself, as it was HE he began claiming that the rhetoric of my posts is *misogynist* - which is an Ad-Hominem argument as it has no correlation to the validity of my claims - however he has continuously berated, insulted and ostracised the male youth who refuse to work (he has failed to use any objective evidence to support his claims), which is a form of hatred and bigotry.
The claims that I have made can be verified by the objective evidence that is located on my site - www.mens-rights.net, while the American Savage has merely based his insinuations on his own subjective opinion.
dweed Said: I don't hate them - I disagree with them, but I don't allow it to rise to the emotionally lathered level you do. (Oh by the way, that substitution of emotional intensity for logic that you've been doing - that's another thing they like to do.)
Chris Key Says: Which would explain why I am using objective evidence to verify my claims while you're just using Ad-Hominem arguments (a term you don't even seem to understand), Straw-man fallacies, and other unsubstantiated claims such as - "unemployed young men live in basements where they play video games" as the basis of your rhetoric. A quick review of your rhetoric will reveal that you have FAILED to offer a single citation to any form of factual evidence that could validate your arguments, and that means that you are functioning on emotion. On the other hand, I have verified my claims by offering a wealth of citations to objective evidence that validate my arguments.
Can you prove that all of the unemployed young men are living in their basements and playing video games? Can you prove that all of the unemployed young men are physiologically and psychologically able to work? Can you prove that all of the unemployed young men are *arrested adolescents* as you tried to insinuate? So far you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support your insinuations, and that means that your arguments are UNSUBSTANTIATED.
dweeb Said: "The only legitimate answer to prejudice is excellence." - Martin Luther King, Jr. That knife cuts both ways.
Chris Key Says: Your argument has no basis when it is applied to concepts such as Affirmative Action and Sex Quotas, as can be identified by the following example:
- There are 10 vacancies available at a corporation, however the law states at least 4 of the positions MUST be given to women. There are 8 male applicants who possess the qualification that is required along with a history of academic success and a load of experience, compared to 6 female applicants who are inexperienced and unqualified. A maximum of only six of those men can be employed, as four of the positions must be given to the female applicants, and that means that the *excellence* of the men is overlooked by the fact they're NOT female. As you can see, your argument does not hold a great deal of substance, as the academic and moral excellence of a man does not necessarily translate into financial success when he has to compete with *Affirmative Action* and *Sex Quotas*.
dweeb Said: First, I want to commend you on your profanity - the last resort of the verbally inept.
Chris Key Says: The actual word of *cunt* is used on a regular basis in Australia (which is where I live), and was accepted in England during the Middle Ages. Many streets in England were named "Gropecunt Lane" during the Middle Ages, and were the designated site of employment for the prostitutes to ply their trade. The word cunt was recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary during the 13th Century. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt_Lane
Just because the American media are unwilling to broadcoast the word *cunt* does not mean it is a form of profanity that isn't used in other parts of the world.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt - "In Australian, and to a lesser extent British English, however, while still being considered highly offensive in most contexts, the word is also often used and received more gently, to the extent that in some situations it has a comedic quality and can even be used as a term of affection; this is less often the case in American English, however."
The illogical nature of the American Savage's argument can be identified by the fact he has cited words that DO NOT EVEN APPEAR IN THE DICTIONARY such as "keesters"; therefore is he in a position to claim that the referral to profane language is a form of verbal ineptness?
Here is the comment that was made by the American Savage:
"And while they sit waiting, others are getting off their keesters and going out SEEKING it."
Why the American Savage felt a need to state that the referral to profane language is a form of *verbal ineptness* we will never know, however he may have been hoping that it would work as an Ad-Hominem argument and divert attention away from the original topic.
dweeb Said: The harassment statutes are not a problem for those who understand them. Millions of men manage to avoid such entanglements every day.
Chris Key Says: There are many men and employers who were the victims of false accusations when they NEVER even committed such an act, therefore your argument has no merit. A Japanese automobile company were the victims of a false accusation and were required to offer a cash settlement to the accuser, as the negative attention that they company received from the media caused them to lose a LOT of money. The frequency of false accusations might be quite rare, however when a man knows that he can be falsely accused at any moment, it sure does dissuade him from even WANTING to go to work.
dweeb Said: Cry me a river. Just put down the Big Mac and try exercising.
Chris Key Says: Another Ad-Hominem argument.
1. I DO NOT eat McDonalds, and I only weigh 64 kilograms which is healthy for a 5'9" male.
2. Those who lead stressful lives are VERY SUSCEPTIBLE to heart-disease, and while exercise may alleviate SOME of the anxiety, it cannot completely repair the damage that is caused by physiological stress.
dweeb Said: Any idea how long men worked in an agrarian society while the womenfolk kept 'their place' in the home?
Chris Key Says: The industrialisation of the world was the period in which an increasing number of families began to emigrate from the rural regions to the suburbs.
dweeb Said: I guess some men only hear what they want. All those guys on the cover of Forbes, Fortune, and BusinessWeek must live in a different universe, or maybe they just didn't get your memo.
Chris Key Says: While there are a SMALL MINORITY of men who have obtained financial success within the corporate world, that does not mean that ALL men are able to replicate their feats. It must also be noted that a LOT of the persons who are successful in the corporate world are usually corrupt and immoral in how they treat their fellow employees. A successful businessman cannot afford to be compassionate or chivalrous, as it will affect his ability to implement any decision that is unfair to others.
dweeb Said: Like any other investment/gamble, you can choose where and how to bet, and your odds are largely a function of how wisely you make your choices. I don't know any divorced guys with half a brain who can't see how they made stupid decisions leading up to their current situation. As for paternity, there's nothing they can do to you if you keep it in your pants.
Chris Key Says: The ignorance of the American Savage has just been displayed, as the act of Paternity Fraud is when a woman falsely accuses a man of fathering her child, and that means he does not even need to have had sex with her since the offspring was not produced by his DNA.
There have been instances in women have been able to enforce men to pay child support for children that DID NOT EVEN EXIST, and there were cases in which women were able to gain child support from men they had NEVER EVEN MET.
Paternity fraud is not considered a crime, therefore even if a man who is accused of paternity is able to provide DNA evidence to prove he is NOT the biological father of the child in question, he can STILL be instructed to pay child support, and failure to abide by the act can lead to his imprisonment. More information - http://www.mens-rights.net/law/paternityfraud.htm
Steve Barreras was forced to pay $20,000 in child support for a child that DID NOT EVEN EXIST, http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=15631&cat=NMTOPSTORIES
As I have stated before, you do not possess a great deal of knowledge about feminism and it's history, therefore you're in no position to state whether men should be working or not. You have just embarrassed yourself by expressing your ignorance on this issue.
dweed Said: Are you really this dense? It has nothing to do with your or her position on any issue. It has to do with your, and her, response to any condition contrary to your preferences. Both of you, upon the first inkling that the world might not be just the way you want it, opt to go weak in the knees and retire from the field. She thinks swooning and nausea are a valid response to conditions contray to preference, you think hiding in Mommy's basement is a valid response. She opts for, and you advocate, a cry, run, hide approach to conflict and adversity. Some of us seem to be made of heartier stock, and manage to come out ahead despite non-ideal circumstances. If you're waiting for the world to be perfect before you'll participate, you're going to have a LOOOONG wait.
Chris Key Says: The American Savage has once again shown that he is illogical, as he admitted that the system is anti-male, however he has failed to offer a solution to the problem; therefore the underlying theory of his argument is contradictory in nature.
The American Savage seems to be suggesting that men should continue to work within the very system that treats them like second-class citizens and HOPE for everything will suddenly change, which is basically the definition of insanity:
Insanity - Performing the same action on a repetitive basis and hoping for a different result.
Until the American Savage can identify a manner in which men can improve their societal status while working at the same time, then he has no right to criticise those who do not work.
Workers tend to boycott their jobs in large numbers when they're treated unfairly, as they know the act will usually lead to their employers meeting their demands. The male youth are now boycotting the entire workforce as they're sick of being treated like second-class citizens, and it seems to be causing people to take notice, which means that their plan has been successful.
In my opinion, I believe men should work part-time in the fields that do not contain a lot of female employees; just in order to earn enough money to support themselves, however I do not believe that men should be required to lead the lifestyle of *Provider*. Until society begins to treat men like Humans, then people cannot expect men to just conform to the very system that treats them like second-class citizens.
Men are beginning to realise that they're defenseless against the socialist state, therefore the only manner in which they can gain any attention is by depriving society of their skills.
dweed Said: Are you really this dense? It has nothing to do with your or her position on any issue. It has to do with your, and her, response to any condition contrary to your preferences. Both of you, upon the first inkling that the world might not be just the way you want it, opt to go weak in the knees and retire from the field. She thinks swooning and nausea are a valid response to conditions contray to preference, you think hiding in Mommy's basement is a valid response. She opts for, and you advocate, a cry, run, hide approach to conflict and adversity. Some of us seem to be made of heartier stock, and manage to come out ahead despite non-ideal circumstances. If you're waiting for the world to be perfect before you'll participate, you're going to have a LOOOONG wait.
Chris Key Says: Not once have I stated that men should take refuge within their mother's basement and play video games; I merely said that I do not condemn those who refuse to work.
The manner in which you generalise really is quite disturbing, as it shows that you're not only ignorant, but there is a possibility that you could be an intellectual retard.
The logical fallacy of your argument can also be identified by the fact the act of working is NOT necessary a direct contribution to society. There are many ways in which people can contribute to society, and if it means they offer help to those who are in need, then they're doing more than a person who is earning more for THEMSELVES.
You may have worked over the years, however it doesn't mean you have contributed anything of value to society.
Do you work in order to help others, or do you work in order to gain profit? Anyone can work for their own benefit, but it takes a lot of integrity and compassion to help other people.
The insanity of dweeb's argument can be identified by the manner in which he perceives the world. He tries to associate the act of *working* as the defining of *contribution*, however he fails to acknowledge that the collection of money DOES NOT benefit the biosphere.
A person can work in an office for their entire life and earn millions of dollars, however it doesn't mean they have helped to preserve the environment or the biosphere.
A person who NEVER works can still nurture the fauna in his/her environment and ensure that the future of many species remains safe, and that is a contribution that CANNOT be underestimated.
Unfortunately there are a LOT of people who are so credulous they will literally believe anything that the Government tells them, and if that means a politician says that people should WORK, then people will often believe it.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” Adolph Hitler
dweeb Said: Tell that to Lizzy Borden. Women were hanged in the 19th century.
Chris Key Says: Women in general were offered a LARGE amount of impunity during the 19th Century. While a SMALL amount of women were punished for their actions during the 19th Century, the vast majority of women were offered a large amount of impunity that was NEVER available to the men.
A review of the following chapter in the following book will verify my claim:
Book - The Legal Subjection of Men
Author - Belfort Bax
Published - 1909
Chapter In Question - THE CIVIL LAW
Online Copy of Book - http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/Belfort_Bax.html
Very nice site! French holiday home insurance 20 Aarp+homeowner+insurance http://www.zithromaxzpak.info/Merchant-services-account-hawaii.html
Well, first of all, Dr. Helen, have you ever even read any of Dr. Sax's work beside this interview? Has anyone else? (I didn't read all the way down the posts, but the ones I looked at don't seem familiar with him.)
First of all, environmental factors: Dr. Sax goes into great detail about the research and tests that have gone into this theory. It does NOT affect girls the same way, although high levels of pthalates ARE being found in girls that are entering puberty earlier than normal (I'm talking ages 8 or 9, for example). This chemical, typically found in a majority of everyday plastics, has been undergoing numerous tests and studies to support the theory of them having an impact on the part of boys' brains that work with motivation.
Video games: come on. Are you seriously going to tell me you don't think they're a problem? Yes, yes, I know there are plenty of people (boys included) that play solely for occasional entertainment, but on the flip side, when you're addicted to these games, why be ambitious in the real world? You can hit buttons and move the joystick and get the rewarding feelings without leaving the couch.
Lastly, your last comment on Dr. Sax's response pertaining to boys being unmotivated because of a equal rights world? He (who is also the father of a daughter, by the way) has great respect and appreciation for the role women play in this culture. He merely touched upon how men and boys do have it differently than previous generations did, and discussed new ways of them fitting in.
This is directed to dadvocate: If you had read anything else about "the good Dr. Sax", you would see his opposition to drugs commonly prescribed for ADHD-and the negative effects it's said to have on boys. Don't read just one edited transcript and pass judgment.
All in all, I am a great follower of Dr. Sax's work. As a mother of both a boy and two girls, I see firsthand how incredibly different the two genders are, and how our sometimes overly PC (for lack of a better word) is indeed impacting boys, not always for the better.
85cc免費影片觀看85cc免費影片觀看85cc免費影片觀看85cc免費影城85cc85cc免費影城85cc85cc免費影城85cc85cc免費影片長片85cc免費影片長片85cc免費影片長片85cc免費影片欣賞85cc免費影片欣賞85cc免費影片欣賞85cc免費成人影城85cc免費成人影城85cc免費成人影城85cc免費影城net
Boys are given more aggression to make them tough. They are given love, honor, respect only on condition of achievement, status, etc. Boys are not given kind, stable, mental/emotional/social/verbal interaction for fear of coddling, again to make them tough. This treatment creates higher average stress, more tension, defensiveness, and more activity that hurts academic learning in the school setting. This is why girls mature faster than boys.
Girls are not required to be tough. This enables much love, honor, respect simply for being girls; much kind stable mental/emotional/social/verbal interaction that enables much early maturing in those areas. Girls are given much protection that enables much stability and freedom of expression that aids in venting and also unlike boys gains more stable support and care that maintains good health. This is enabling girls to surge ahead academically and now also economically.
Post a Comment
<< Home