Ask Dr. Helen: Suicide, men and money
My PJM column is up:
You can read more here.
How do we help husbands and fathers whose financial angst has brought them to the darkest place?
You can read more here.
Labels: PJM column, suicide
posted by Helen at 10:43 AM
82 Comments:
Soooo, the usual practice of telling guys to "man up and stop whining" isn't cutting it? Imagine.
For me, being told that I can make it happen, that I can stand the situation, that I have something to hope for and there are things I can do to address the situation makes all the difference in the world.
There is some minor overlap with manning up, but there is no hope of success or triumph in merely manning up.
Trey
No, apparently the commenters over at Pajamas Media have come up with the usual culprit to all of modern man's problems: Women. Men are perfect, if only all women would change their way life would be beautiful perfect. Yawn.
If men are at the point of suicide because of the pressure to earn etc., I'd say it's time for them to step back and ask whether the woman is WORTH that.
I've come to my own conclusions, but I really am astounded at the inability some men have to see through their childhood training and the training that women continually put on them.
"Real men" either come up with the cash for the woman's shopping or commit suicide. Bizarre.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cham,
Men have to develop an ability to SEE things as they really are.
And women are just women. If they are disruptive to your life, the sex or whatever you get out of them is not worth it.
You don't HAVE TO support some ungrateful, materialistic thing. And that's what these men feel they have to do. Why?
Cham - The culprit isn't women. It's the completely feminized culture.
Bill
http://willstuff.wordpress.com
I remember when I was in college, taking education courses for my teaching certificate, I had to serve as a student teacher for one semester at a junior high then a high school.
The professor was an old marine, kind of gruff and more blunt than nice. He wasn't the worse professor I ever had, so I didn't mind his style, but he rubbed a lot of the other students the wrong way.
Howbeit, he had to come and observe each student teach a class at their assigned school, then give an evaluation.
There was this one student, a young male, whom I did not know other than to say that he sat in the same class as I did. Well, the professor went and observed him teach, gave him a harsh evaluation, and this guy went home and promptly went home and killed himself, blew his brains out with a gun.
Naturally, this caused a great deal of consternation for the professor, not to mention the administration, and the rest of the class.
Now, I found this inexplicable. When I was 17, I was road kill, the victim of an unfortunate automobile accident, in a coma for two weeks, so beaten up, bruised, bloodied, and burned that my own mother couldn't recognize me. But I survived. It wasn't easy, took over two years to fully recover, however that which does not kill you makes you stronger.
College was difficult for me. In fact I damn near failed out, but I got my act together and worked through it. Part of the problem was that my eyes had been knocked cooked and I had a hard time reading. It took two eye muscle surgeries to correct my vision, but before that I had to read and study with one eye shut.
So, when I found out that this young man had committed suicide because of a poor evaluation, I couldn't understand it. I thought about all the pain, injuries, and obstacles I had overcome, and wondered what could possess someone to kill himself over nothing more than a bad grade.
Life is hard. It isn't fair. Everyone has to go through their moments of great doubt. The only reason I can fathom as to why some choose death, the easy way out, over life, the hard way out, is because they have lost their souls. Nothing else makes sense.
People react to stressful situations in different ways. Some cannot handle it, for whatever reason. Others struggle on no matter what and endure. Few are blessed to not know what it takes to truly survive.
Blaming suicide on the economy, or the culture, or the bad attitude of women, or the failure of guys to man up, misses the point entirely. There is always stress. There are always bad relationships. Some people live through horrific events and prosper. Other people kill themselves for no apparent reason, even over something as insignificant as a bad grade. There is no explanation for that other than the frailty of human existence.
I fully agree that men and women need a support mechanism for dealing with the trials and tribulations of life. Most of these tragedies could be prevented if a more effective mechanism were in place, or if someone, anyone, had just given them a reason to live.
A few years ago, I came home from the office, and one of my neighbors shouted at me from across the driveway, asked me to give him a call. He was one of my buddies that I went shooting at the range with, so I told him I would. But I had a lot of work to still do, and I forgot.
He ate his gun that night. No one knows why.
Sometimes I ask myself if I could have prevented his suicide. All it would have taken is a phone call. Maybe all he needed was someone to talk to. But I'll never know.
Bill - "Cham - The culprit isn't women. It's the completely feminized culture."Personally, I'd have to say it's the intersection of traditional culture with modern feminized culture that's created previously unknown levels of stress and hopelessness for men.
The traditional culture stresses the valuation of men based on their earning potential. This consideration comes both from men and women alike. Women play a role in magnifying either the relative success of failure of a man based on their level of interest in them.
This alone creates enough of a stressful situation for men who find themselves un- or under-employed.
yet, today, another stressor has been heaped upon men - their devaluation as human individuals by the increasingly feminized culture.
As boys grow to men, they are informed of all of the negatives owning to their gender. Their needs are routinely ignored, while the girls are being taught to feel empowered, important, and entitled as they become women. Men are increasingly seen as disposable, their needs meaning little in the grander scheme of feminized world.
If a man is falsely accused of rape, he will be made to suffer greatly, even if he is exonerated. His false accuser might get punished, but only to a much lesser extent than what he will have suffered. This all too common scenario is but one of many in which men are being constantly informed that they are less valuable as human beings than are women.
Where once a married man who lost his job might have been able to get comfort and encouragement from a loving wife, that outcome has become quite rare today. Modern women have been taught that it’s all about them and their needs. They need to be made happy. That’s their husbands job. If he fails to make them happy, he is useless to them.
Now, if a married man looses his livelihood, he can fully expect to loose his wife’s respect. Glenn Sack’s blog recently featured the telling story of a family in which the man became unemployed, and was actively and eagerly filling the role traditionally held be women as in maintaining the household and caring for the children; while the wife now worked to support them. And, she was anything but happy to do so.
Such a man’s marriage is automatically “on the rocks”. Women will not likely reciprocate with love, sympathy and understanding the way a husband would likely for his wife if she lost her job. Even if his wife doesn’t dump him outright, she’ll be much more inclined to start looking around for another man who can meet her needs better, and it’s a virtual certainty that she will make his life unbearable – nagging him, and withdrawing all sexual interest – should he fail to find gainful employment quickly.
Is it then any wonder that some men reach such dark places. They’re failures at earning a living. They’re failures with women. And, now, they fail to matter at all.
Cross posting:
I currently work in a job I loathe, in a career I hate. The problem is that I'm very, very good at it and pretty much suck at everything else. Now there are a few other things I'm pretty good at, but they barely pay enough to support one person, if that, and certainly not a family. I may pick them up again when I'm closer to retirement.
Tim Allen observed that while women have lots of options, men can either get a job or go to jail. I continually amazed at how few women understand and respect this. Don't get me wrong; I'm glad women have all these choices, but I do that as a group, they need to be a bit less hypocritical.
One often overlooked thing is that over the last half century, modern job specialization, unionization, government regulations, a plethora of liberal programs and heavy taxation have closed off traditional avenues for down-on-their-luck working folk. The irony is that while modern life has opened up many opportunities to women, it has shut down many as well. (Even fall back professions such as teaching have become insanely closed.)
How do we help husbands and fathers whose financial angst has brought them to the darkest place?Pray for them.
Be there for them -- physical presence, including them in daily routines -- that can get them back in the day-to-day normalcy that takes them out of the dark places of death wishes.
Then, pray some more. And get outside financial counseling. Putting things in His hands, and working to free the family from debt can help, but being there is number one.
All in my humble humble opinion, of course.
By the way, check out the pathetic posting in the other comment section from a woman bitching about her 51-year-old husband who was laid off and decided to retire. She actually has the gall to complain that now she has to support him!
"I continually amazed at how few women understand and respect this."
-------
They don't have to understand it or respect it, so they'll simply ignore it. They don't care - they're going to get their money either way. If "real man" shaming doesn't work, they can just cut off sex.
I don't know where this concept comes from that a *human being*, a woman, has to be supported and catered to like a princess. But it's prevalent in the United States; tons of sit-at-home women, tons of women complaining and nagging and shifting responsibility off them.
Can a Real Man(TM) explain to me the thought process behind this? Is there somehow an advantage to turning yourself into a slave?
Tether - "Can a Real Man(TM) explain to me the thought process behind this? Is there somehow an advantage to turning yourself into a slave?"I can't speak for Trey, but I have to doubt he'd suggest it was self-betterment of making oneself a cuckolded financial slave to the likes of Kimberly of http://yourerrantwife.blogspot.com/ infamy.
Oddly enough... as if right on cue:
"Man Fired, Returns Home To Find House Burning:
Fire Victim Worked As Emergency Counselor" (http://www.kptv.com/news/19276320/detail.html)
A single father looses both his job and his home in less than one hour. Seems like his training and his two daughters are sustaining him through it.
Probably just as well that his ex-wife is no longer around. One can only imagine how intolerable she would make such a situation.
Thanks slw, I advocate slavery to no man or woman.
Trey
@Cham said... No, apparently the commenters over at Pajamas Media have come up with the usual culprit to all of modern man's problems: Women. Men are perfect, if only all women would change their way life would be beautiful perfect. Yawn.
___________
First of all, Cham, how does that feel? That's how us men feel being blamed for all ills of women. Difference is, the law of the land and judicial dictators force us to pay for women's bad choices. When you have to pay half of your salary so your ex husband and the woman he cheated on you with can live in the house you are paying for with your children, then you'll get a taste of how the courts treat men.
Second, your statement is false. Blaming women? No. Blaming feminism? Largely.
Not every women is a feminist. Women are beautiful creations. Feminism in its current incarnation is a repugnant choice.
Joe..."Even fall back professions such as teaching have become insanely closed"...out-of-control credentialism is doing huge amount of harm to our society by preventing class and professional mobility. There is *no* evidence that an ed school degree makes one a better teacher, but such a degree is still required for public school teaching in most states.
Business isn't as bad as government, academia, and the "nonproft" world, but there's still way too much credentialism in it.
My husband didn't much enjoy being out of work when we moved here to Florida. We moved here for my job and thought he'd find something pretty quick. Unemployment hit here before it did anywhere else, I think. It took a year, and still he only found part time work that doesn't pay much at all. The value in it is to have a little breathing room - we budgeted our living expenses based on my pay only, thank God - but mostly for him to be occupied and to feel like he's accomplishing something.
I think that if it had been he making the money that I'm making I'd have been bored stiff and worried about the ever-growing gap in my resume, but I would have challenged myself to keep the house spotless, bargain-hunted to make the most of the money we had, and volunteered to get out of the house and socialize and network and so forth. I did encourage him to volunteer while he was job-hunting but he didn't take me up on it. Depression, yes, but whereas if it's your friend you can kick his butt and tell him to stop the pity party and find something to do, if it's your spouse your primary job is to accept and affirm - at least, that's how I see it.
I know it must have been really hard on him last year when I threw my back out, and after a few days of total misery had to go hobbling back to work still on prescription pain killers. He took great care of me and I know he had to have hated seeing me go to work in the shape I was in, to support us. I would have hated it. There wasn't much of anything I could do about his feelings except to continue thanking him for his care and telling him I appreciated him.
I kept an eye on him, though. If I'd thought he was seriously depressed I would have asked around about counselors and so forth. He's always made friends easily, talked to people on the block and at the grocery store and to his friends back home, so I knew he wasn't really isolated.
And probably the fact that I was already the primary breadwinner helped. But he's always taken a lot of pride in his job, in doing it well and making a difference. Couldn't seem to make the transition to taking pride in keeping house. It was just a bit hard on me to come home after a full day at work and see that the kitchen floor badly needed mopping and so forth, and not snap at him about it but just mop it myself.
Oh well.
He still thanks me for moving us here. I'm still glad we did.
David said, "There is *no* evidence that an ed school degree makes one a better teacher"
Not only that, but the Teach for America teachers who go into difficult situations with almost no preparation, turn out students who score higher on end-of-year tests than the students of those highly-credentialed teachers. Here.
Gee ... It's All About Laura again.
In this episode, Laura patiently explains once again why she's a great gal.
Sometimes she leans towards the stuff that makes her look good and forgets other stuff (tee hee!).
In any case, don't forget, It's All About Laura. General ideas have a very limited place here.
Must have struck a nerve.
: )
Trust, that was an excellent post.
Thanks.
Trey
Teach for America is a highly competitive program. Usually, those in it are very intelligent, shiny faced boys and girls from the best colleges. They're going into it for a year or two to "give back," and then they'll go on to their hedge funds, or into politics, or whatever shiny, real lives they've planned for themselves. I don't think it's a program that scales.
Don't get me wrong, I am one hundred percent with you and everyone who complains about the so-called credentials needed for teaching. I got a master's degree from an Ed school -- it was a joke. It had really nothing to do with being a good teacher. A methods class and student teaching is all anyone of good intelligence with a background in his subject needs. That and a tiny bit of talent.
The real problem in teaching, other than the stranglehold politicians and unions have on the profession, is the lack of any meaningful discipline in the schools. Any wild child is permitted to rob the rest of their education. Here in New York, administrators actively discourage any real discipline. We've had a multiplication of student "rights," and a multiplication of sue-crazy parents and shyster lawyers enabling them.
Mark my words: if you have kids in school, they are sitting in the same classroom with the near-criminally insane. It is completely demoralizing to teachers. Are you familiar with the idea that the criminal is already back out on the street while the arresting officer is still busy with the paperwork? The same idea applies. The same thing that makes good cops apathetic affects teachers the same way.
Sorry to be off-topic.
@Trey
Thank you.
I call them like I see them brother. 8) What I really liked avbout your post is how it expressed the fears and frustrations of being a man in this society in an impassioned but kind way. It was intense, but there was no trace of insult.
I find that difficult to achieve at times.
Trey
@Trey
I hear you.
I think one thing women do not see about men and gender differences is the disparity between support and understanding. If someone finds out that a man is making more than a woman in a similar position, without even considering who works more hours or produces more, they immediately jump to charges of sexism. Governors and legislators launch campaigns. Judges swing their gavels. Opera does a show, magazines run articles. Everyone is shocked and angry at men for the "patriarchy."
On the flip side, when the family courts crucify innocent men, take their children away, and steal their money to support their adulterous ex wife (and often her new boyfriend), or when men are hurt or oppresed, there is no such cry. In fact, the opposite is true. They are called babies, wimps, told to "man up."
Women often carry on about how bad they have and how lucky men are, but I don't think they would like switching places. In fact, I once read a book (I'll look up the title later) about a women who disguised herself as a man, and after over a year she needed therapy to recover. On the plus side, she found men to be much better than she thought (in groups, they didn't trash their wives like women did to their husbands, for example). However, it drove her crazy that she couldn't express her emotions, how readily people would laugh at her if she shown any weaknesses or misstep, and how she thought she would be the perfect man for a woman (sensitive and understanding) and that women would show interest in her for that reason--but instead, they looked at her like she was inferior produce at the grocery store.
I know women have their difficulties. I wish they would see we have ours as well. (And, knowing the courts will take your kids and your money if your wife is unhappy or unfaithful is not the least of them.)
@I once read a book (I'll look up the title later)
____
I knew I'd remember the title as soon as I clicked send. It is called "Self Made Man."
I have not read that yet, but Helen liked it and I think she and Glenn interviewed the author too.
Can you imagine dressing like and passing for a woman for a year?!?! First, I would never make it in the looks department, but I would feel SO out of place and lost. An interesting variable for the author of the book is that she is lesbian (or bisexual,) which puts another interesting spin on the experience.
I gotta read that and "Black Like Me."
Trey
Say, "Trust" n "Trey":
I hate to break up the love fest tween fellas but...
First of all, Cham, how does that feel? That's how us men feel being blamed for all ills of women. Difference is, the law of the land and judicial dictators force us to pay for women's bad choices. When you have to pay half of your salary so your ex husband and the woman he cheated on you with can live in the house you are paying for with your children, then you'll get a taste of how the courts treat men. and
I call them like I see them brother. 8) What I really liked avbout your post is how it expressed the fears and frustrations of being a man in this society in an impassioned but kind way. It was intense, but there was no trace of insult.
I find that difficult to achieve at times.
??
Maybe hold off on the lesbian books and the Black Like Me, until you've got a proper handle on White Guy Lite?
Mary suggests - "Maybe hold off on the lesbian books and the Black Like Me, until you've got a proper handle on White Guy Lite?"I'm, guessing this was supposed to be an insult?
Maybe Trust & Trey understand some hidden meaning in your snarky remarks, but maybe you could provide some explanation as to what you mean.
On first reading, without any "insider knowledge" it just appears that you are a bigot seeking to insult lesbians, blacks, and white guys in one fell swoop.
How she is depends on how her meds are working on a day to day basis, slwerner.
She hangs around a while, disappears for about 3 months, hangs around a while, disappears for about 3 months.
You can almost set your watch by it.
Nope, not into the "meds" thang br. Sorry to disappoint.
Yep -- I spose I do play more online in the winter weather, and tend to comment more.
Fishing opener this weekend, so ... set that watch. Prolly won't see me in here too much chuckling at the male victims bonding.
(Is slwerner still around? Don't read his angry screeds myself...) Thanks for your interest in me, br. Feel free to drop by m' blog if you're curious still about my online patterns.
People like Mary are good to have around. She convinces more men to avoid women in one comment than I could in 100 pages.
The way she continually insults any men who bring up male specific concerns, and considers this her "job", is indicative of the mentality of the majority of Western Women. It matters not whether they are rabid feminists or blubberring Conservative Christians. The default position of women is "men should shut up. WE are the ones who deserve the attention."
This is all fine. It is the way things work in the world. Especially biologically. One can't blame Mary for her blatant insensitivity towards to men any more than one can blame a dog for barking. The problem is that the "Mary's" of the world have too much power over those who she wouldn't piss on if they were on fire - while still demanding that those who are burning keep their bladders full in case the ladies get a little too hot from the flames.
I know a fellow online who used to run a divorce-support group in the 1980's. He said they were plagued by male suicides in their groups until they separated the men from the women, so that the men were finally permitted to express their concerns without the plethora of holier than thou women standing up and screaching at them to shut up and be a real man - kinda like Mary does. This fellow (annecdotal third party evidence only) claimed that their suicides plummeted after they separated the men from the women.
Women just simply will not tolerate weakness from men. That is their game, not men's.
Find me a woman who is at her wits end, has two screaming toddlers to care for, has a (supposedly) abusive husband, has no money, and no-where to turn for help, and does not see things changing in the future... and then tell her to go "woman up", go back home and make some sandwiches and be right by her man... Yeah. If everytime she sought help, she got slapped in the face by someone like Mary, well... what can you say if she goes and swallows a few extra asprins?
That's what most Western women are doing when they flip off ignorant "Mary comments."
It's just like back in the 80's and the 90's when the ladies told all of the men that they were "broken" because they could not express their emotions to women. HOWEVER, when men followed women's advice (men always do what women want), and started showing their emotions - ESPECIALLY their emotions in regard to being to hurt by the callous actions of their significant others... well, the ladies then found that men having emotions also meant that WOMEN were responsible for causing MANY of men's ill-emotional circumstances. So, they asked for men to be "real men" again, so women wouldn't have to face how their callous, ignorant actions, have such horrendous effects on others, and so "being a real man" releases women from the guilt of being such a bitch to men on a regular basis.
It's best not for women to think of men as "humans" with emotions, hurts, depressions, frustrations and despair. If men are just inanimate dildos that women can turn on and off at her pleasure, or usher in and out of her (and her children's) life on a whim... well, then, there is no guilt for them to bear, is there?
Women don't want men to have emotions, and they certainly don't want to see it. If women were to acknowledge men as emotional creatures then they would also have to acknowledge the STAGGERING amount of psychological abuse women foist upon men on a daily basis.
Btw. Men's and women's emotions are different. To say that women are MORE emotional is a crock of shit.
Women have MORE EMOTIONS, they are *not* more emotional. Men have fewer emotions, but their emotions are far more intense/deeper.
It is just like how the Inuit have 50-some names for all the different kinds of snow, and yet they only get a few inches of snow a year in the Arctic, while the east-coast only has one word for "snow" but get a massive dumping of it each year.
So it is between women's and men's emotions.
Women have MORE emotions but they do not run as deep as men's emotions. Why do you think men die to protect the women they love, while women rarely do the same? Why do you think that men are the best poets, playwrights & artists?
And feminists themselves LOVE this as they shriek and giggle that women are much quicker to recover from an ended relationship/broken heart than men etc. (Stupid men! Loving women so much!)
The best thing that can be done for men ready to blow their brains out is for the women around them to be REMOVED from their presence! The last thing a man who feels a gun to the head is the best option needs to hear is "stop whining and e a man" from some ignorant shrew with the emotional depth of an ice-cube.
Mary, I am glad you agreed with my post enough to quote the whole thing, but I am missing your point entirely.
Trey
Rob wrote: "Women just simply will not tolerate weakness from men."
Rob, do you think it is weakness or complaining about how men are harmed by gender inequity? Or both?
I am thinking it is gender inequity, but I would like to read your thoughts.
Trey
Rob,
If you want people to read your comments, you might consider editing. One looks at a block of text that long ... it's a comment bud, not a manifesto. Trim it down, and maybe I'll read it?
Trey, hon, not agreeing with ya. Read it again? My question mark was -- were you referring to the Trust comment I also quoted? Because it seems to be ... inconsistent with what he wrote. Perhaps I'm missing something though -- maybe it's an insincere guy-compliment thang?
*silently excusing myself from further discussion; making a reminder note to steer clear of John Galt/suicide dropout discussions.*
Trey:
To spell it out, in case you get stuck w/o me to follow up, yer bud "Trust"'s post seemed rather insulting to Cham, to whom he was addressing. But good on ya for supporting your brother's impassion! How very 70s enlightening like; maybe y'all could get a man's group together to beat drums in the woods some weekend ... :-0 Peace/out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Fedders remarked of Mary - "The way she continually insults any men who bring up male specific concerns, and considers this her "job", is indicative of the mentality of the majority of Western Women. It matters not whether they are rabid feminists or blubberring Conservative Christians. The default position of women is "men should shut up. WE are the ones who deserve the attention."
As if to help make his point, Mary chimes in with her final retort to men trying to have a serious discussion about a deadly serious issue - "maybe y'all could get a man's group together to beat drums in the woods some weekend..."
Given Rob's harsh critique, one might have guessed Mary would have taken a much different tone in an effort to show that she was not like he suggested she was. But, no, she became even more dismissive and mocking.
And, if that wasn't bad enough, I (for one) still have no idea what her "White Guy Lite" insult was all about. Anyone care to fill me in if there's some inside joke in that?
Or is it just what I've been assuming it to be, rude and inane verbal vomit?
/screed.
"Given Rob's harsh critique, one might have guessed Mary would have taken a much different tone in an effort to show that she was not like he suggested she was."
Have you seen any evidence that Rob is receptive to suggestion that any particular woman doesn't match his worldview? I haven't. Why would Mary bother changing her tone?
Mary,
When you throw out insults, smart remarks, insult the masculinity of those with whom you disagree, do you think you are making some brilliant argument and that everyone when they are done reeling from your supposed knock out blow will realize--gee, Mary was right, glad she knocked some since into me.
You may have thought I was being insulting to Cham, but I wasn't. I was making the point that men don't like being blamed any more for all women's ills than women like being blamed for all men's ills. It was nothing more than putting a shoe on the other foot. If you made it through the whole thing, you would see that I was clear that I don't think women are to blame for all men's ills.
You know, on another thread I apologized for misunderstanding you. (Yes, real men do that.) When you're snide bitch it makes me wonder if I was wrong when I thought I misunderstood you.
Trey, she's broke up our "love fest" and "brotherhood." We're obviously not real men. Yes, it was me, and not her, that was insulting. I'm just soooooo scared that she'll knock some more sense into me.
Laura - "
Have you seen any evidence that Rob is receptive to suggestion that any particular woman doesn't match his worldview? I haven't. Why would Mary bother changing her tone?"Mary should changer her tone simply because it would reveal some semblance of good character on her part (rather than what her earlier words seem to indicate).
Why should I bother inspecting Rob's motives? He was making a point regarding Mary's seemingly inappropriate remarks, suggesting she fit nicely into a particular worldview.
I take it that you, yourself, are not receptive to Rob's opinion of modern western world feminists?
Frankly, if Mary were different from what he was proffering, it seems to me she could simply have state so. Instead, she demonstrated that she was largely just what Rob suggested that she was - basically indifferent to men's issues, as the smug self-righteous Christian Feminist that she is.
Mary shouldn't have changed her tone for Rob's sake - she should have done so because her remarks had been inappropriate (or, perhaps, you understand her bigoted-soundly comment to be some attempt at humor that you might explain?).
Of course, as she herself notes, Mary will not read any of my "screeds" because I dared to disagree with her some time back.
Frankly, if she felt my attempts to explain why men might not view marriage favorably were "hatred and poison", I'm surprised that she'll still read Rob's comments (which I believe are quite a bit harsher than anything I had posted to get myself banned from Mary's reading list).
@Dr. Helen and bloggers,
I probably should not have engaged Mary and retaliated against her insults publicly like that. Why she thinks insulting someone's masculinity, making snide remarks, and everything else are such brilliance when typed by her, but something she disagrees with is offensive if it is typed by someone else, is beyond me. But in any case, I should not have responded in kind on Dr. H's blog. It was disrespectful to the bystanders. I apologize for doing that.
@Cham,
In case you took my post addressing you the way Mary says she did...
When I said "how's that feel," I thought it would be obvious I meant how do you feel about feeling like, just by virtue of being a woman, that you are being blamed for all men's ills? I meant that as pointing to it being just as man feels in today's world, especially in the face of much of the laws, courts, and media. If you took it as me saying "how does that feel" in the tone of "take that," it is in no way how I meant it.
In other words, "how's that feel" meant that "you didnt like it, so maybe you can understand why men don't like it either."
Best,
Trust
Trust:
I didn't really think much about what you said, I've had a busy day. I will tell you that I know many men that, when things don't go their way and there is a woman involved be it in business or a social situation, will mutter under their breath, "All women are bitches."
It's the same thing that you say, the blame of all the ills of the world on women. It goes both ways. The real key is to identify who is saying this type of nonsense and understand that anyone who feels justified in blaming an entire gender for what is wrong with the world probably has some issues of their own.
I worry about my stuff, and if someone else is going to be blaming their anger at everyone else on me, who primarily stays in my house, has never been married, avoids the courts, doesn't have anything to do with any kids and pays her bills on time (as well as her taxes), then so be it. They're pathetic.
"I take it that you, yourself, are not receptive to Rob's opinion of modern western world feminists?"
I'm not sure that Rob really differentiates between "modern western world feminists" and "women".
He can have any opinions he wants, of course. It's just that he rolls his eyes, so to speak, at the idea that a woman might want to say "we're not all like that"; so if Mary did try to change her tone to placate him, as you seemed to suggest that she should have, it would only have given him another chance to insist that she really is. As he has done to me before. My point was, why should she bother.
I'm actually going to take a leaf from Tether's book here, and say that other people's opinions should only matter so much to a person. Rob is perfectly free to opine that women are crap. It irritates him to have that view argued with. I don't think Mary or any other woman is obligated or even entitled, really, to try to change his mind. It makes him happy to think that way, so good for him. Whatever.
Feminist is a funny word anyway. I can't be one, according to some, because I'm pro-life. On the other hand, somebody here (Rob?) said that women should never be in a leadership role over men, and I disagree with that; I think a leader is a leader, and if there's a leadership vacuum it doesn't much matter whether it's a woman or a man who steps in, so perhaps that makes me a feminist. Again, whatever.
Trust - "In other words, "how's that feel" meant that "you didnt like it, so maybe you can understand why men don't like it either."Hopefully Cham understood your meaning.
For my part, I thought the wording of your (original) post made your position quite clear.
Now, what that other poster, who's name needn't be mentioned, stated was, and remains, entirely baffling.
Actually, early on in this thread, she did post some more thoughtful sounding remarks. And, even though I felt them to be little more than empty platitudes - "being there for them" & "praying for them" -they did at least come across as well intentioned.
But, perhaps, in retrospect, they were deliberately shallow, conveying her view that the difficult issues facing men are worthy of little more than a "pat on the head" and a quick prayer. Men, being the over-abundant creatures of marginal value that we are, don't deserve to be given any more consideration than that.
Laura - "Feminist is a funny word anyway."
As far as Mary goes, perhaps I have not read enough of what she has posted in the past to truly have an accurate view of HER worldview, but from the one time I did attempt to have a dialogue with her, what seemed quite apparent to me was that she readily echoed the fundamental theme espoused by the Gender Feminists of the world - men are the ones who are responsible for the ills of society and they (alone) are the ones who need to be "fixed".
My suggests that young women are in need of better instruction were dismissed as poisonous hatred by her - further cementing the notion that her views were largely driven by the pervasive ideals of Gender Feminism.
While there are many differing views on what constitutes Feminism, the most useful (for the purposes of understanding their motivations) unifying principle of the Gender Feminists remains: men=bad, women=good; and one only apply this "truth" to decipher all matters.
Thus, in the convergent views seemingly held by both Mary and Gender Feminists, if men are reluctant to marry, it is (obviously) because they are bad and need to be "fixed", since women cannot be held in anyway responsible, being as they are, good.
Likewise, if men are suffering from depression, it is because they are "bad", and the best thing that can be hoped for them is that they will see the error of their ways and seek to correct their wrongs - and a quick prayer for them to that ends. Suggesting, even if only to make a point, that women might play a role as to the extent of a men's depression thus deserves ridicule as it suggests women are something other than entirely "good". I believe this is exactly what Mary was doing in her latter posts.
Well, if Mary has the attitude you say she does, it just about bookends Rob's comment of 3:26PM on this thread.
Rob says: "HOWEVER, when men followed women's advice (men always do what women want)....Women don't want men to have emotions, and they certainly don't want to see it. If women were to acknowledge men as emotional creatures then they would also have to acknowledge the STAGGERING amount of psychological abuse women foist upon men on a daily basis."
Here you are: man = good, woman = bad. Does it bother you as much when Rob does it?
Good Grief, Laura, not you again.
I have been very respectful to you and your hit and run tactics both here and on my own blog even though when we first started talking, you showed up unannounced and started off by trying to shame me by passive aggressively insulting my sexuality – a common female tactic.
I don't call women bitches, sluts, or any other derogatory names. I call a spade a spade. Yet, too many of you assume that because I state that men and women are different both physically and psychologically, that I believe women should not be allowed to vote, or to work, or to do anything but be someone’s bed-bitch and fart out babies, and yet, I HAVE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING! And, as I said before, I am more repeating the words of multitudes of time-immortal philosophers and believe it or not, the very God you bowed down before last Sunday. He's such a misogynist too! He was just mistaken though, right? I mean, if He only understood Laura’s point of view, He’d change his mind just like every other male should do!
When I said to Laura that men have "physical power" but women have "emotional/manipulative power" to counter-act it, by way of nature, and then point out that we seem to be able comprehend that men's physical power can be used for good AND evil, but when it comes to "women's power" we seem to only be able to comprehend that they use their emotive/manipulative abilities for good, and never evil... YOU, Laura, will argue with me for days, and days and days... implying that I am indicting you with gender guilt, because NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT! (And you give an example of YOU, that counteracts the other 3.5 Billion women, while never realizing that if I were to say, "BUT I DON'T BEAT WOMEN," does not mean that a man cannot possibly therefore, use his physical powers for ill will. YOU just can't comprehend that and you argue it is misogynist!)
I have shown you a lot of respect, Laura, given how most often your comments to me are veiled passive aggressive attacks.
And as for Mary, people have been reading my loooooong posts for a looooooong time now, and I have developed a bit of a reputation for them... in fact, there are even some who seek out my comments. I think I'll stick to my old tricks. Nice deflect from the real issues though - like, why you are mocking men who are trying to talk about a definite male DEATH problem. Over 80% of suicides are committed by men, and yet, the funding to study suicides is virtually all directed at women... and here comes a woman named Mary, mocking men for being whiners.
Surely there are feminists who play the victim card more than us men commenting on one small corner of the internet... if that is really what bothers you so much, there are richer targets... which is why anyone who has been in this game for a while already knows YOUR game.
At any rate. Here come the women. Men have kept their mouths shut for 40 damn years while women bitched and moaned and blamed men for everything wrong in women's lives, and, in fact, THE WHOLE WORLD!
And somehow, the ladies think "balance" will be achieved by men staying silent and not offending the ladies.
Lol!
It's gonna get a lot worse, ladies. I only became this way because I got so sick and tired of arguing with women like the ones here... those who simply refuse to acknowledge the most obvious things about the world around us.
It is why I rarely engage women, and if I do, it is really only to use them as a sounding board to write against. Men are my real audience, and it is for them that I write... thus, my style. Trying to convince women of anything is futile. The MRM has been around since the 1980’s. Gee, how’s winning women to a reasonable way of thinking been working out? As Esther Villar stated in her book, “The Manipulated Man,” virtually all of the legitimate demands for feminism were met within about a year of women crying out for them – BEFORE the “second wave” feminist movement started. (Like the Equal Pay Act of 1963). So, why has it been 25 years and men have not been able to win one battle yet by trying to appease the ladies? It is how we operate as human beings – men give women what they ask for, and women RARELY do the same for men in return - something the ladies will NEVER admit to, because then they would lose the “victim status” and, quite frankly, women would be screwed if they couldn’t fall back on victimhood. Hell, even feminism itself is a bunch of lunatic women screeching at men to give them things – and they get them!
Men should go their own way. Or else, they might wind up arguing with a Laura or a Mary in their real homes. You cannot have the parasite leading the host. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. Either stop being a parasite, or stop trying to lead.
Laura - "Here you are: man = good, woman = bad. Does it bother you as much when Rob does it/"
Admittedly, I have not addressed the views expressed by Rob as I have those expressed by Mary.
Personally, I don't agree with the frequently expressed view that ALL women are bad, nor would I argue that all men are good. Both genders have their good and their bad actors.
And, while I don't fully agree with either the MGTOW nor the PUA line of reasoning, I do see their "all women as bad" opinions as being merely reflexive towards the far more pervasive view that "men are bad". It is my opinion that even the men who profess such views truly hold ALL women the same - at least not nearly so much as the Gender Feminists hold their views dearly. In the end, the efforts of such men seem to be aimed more at "balancing out" the discourse.
And, when one examines the net effects of either view in the world as a whole, it becomes quite clear that the Gender Feminists view holds sway, and causes far, far more harm to men than does opposite view.
Women are not assumed guilty if a man accuses them of wrong doing, but men typically are (false DV and false rape accusations, for example). No one sees mens violence against women as either cute nor empowering, but it is widely assumed that any man who suffers at a woman's hand was fully deserving of it.
Even in matter of infidelity, men are just unfaithful horny dogs, women are presumed to have been driven to it by their husbands.
The list goes on, but I think you get the point. The notion that men are reasonably to be viewed as THE bad actors has had a far more damaging effect than has the reciprocal view.
"Women are not assumed guilty if a man accuses them of wrong doing, but men typically are (false DV and false rape accusations, for example). No one sees mens violence against women as either cute nor empowering, but it is widely assumed that any man who suffers at a woman's hand was fully deserving of it."
I remember that back during the Mike Tyson rape thing, my female coworkers were all "what was she doing in his hotel room". Same with Kobe Bryant. It's a valid question, I guess, but to them it totally validated Tyson OR Bryant doing whatever the hell they wanted.
Tyson was convicted but Bryant was acquitted, of course. I'm talking about when the initial charge was made and before any details came out, the assumption was already there that the girl MUST have been a slut. I remember having a talk with my daughter at the time about that. Back around the turn of the last century, a woman would only have gone to a man's hotel room alone for a sex-for-money transaction. Whatever happened, she would not have complained b/c it would have gotten her nowhere. A decent woman would have had a chaperon with her or would not have gone. Well, the bad old days are over, of course, men and women do whatever they please without worrying about quaint things like their reputation - only, let something happen and it's 1910 again and "what was she doing in his hotel room." So the prudent girl, I told my daughter, realizes that the old rules never went anywhere. It's not enough to just not be in the wrong, you have to make sure you LOOK like you are not in the wrong.
You think men have the corner on having to think like that?
"Even in matter of infidelity, men are just unfaithful horny dogs, women are presumed to have been driven to it by their husbands." I hear just the opposite - she must not have been keeping him satisfied or he would not have strayed.
Per the last - that it was Bryant's wife's fault for letting him go traveling without her. And her with a new baby at home.
I don't think there is a generalization out there that Laura cannot brush aside by way of singular exceptions.
Except generalizations about women's virtues... in those cases, the exceptions ought to be ignored... but, then again... if there is an argument against those virtues, then the exceptions ought to be allowed as valid again.
There are exceptions to every rule, but, for people to deny generalizations and stereotypes based upon gender is just absurd.
Just by the very nature of having a smaller, weaker body, a woman's psychology will be different than a man's. Evolutionary/Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection will ensure that this takes place. Hell, 160lb MEN have different psychologies than 200lb Men, and for a very good reason! And they only live one lifetime. Imagine what 12,000 years will do!
The thing what we have to start to ascertain is what are valid generalizations.
OBVIOUSLY, not all women are the same. Ayn Rand is more logical than ANY man that I know, and yet, I do generalize that men are more logically based than emotionally based women. Women do the same thing - when convenient. What woman will deny that emotionally-intuitive women are better suited to have custody of the children during a divorce? Tit for tat. There are downsides to having this emotional ability too... namely, it decreases logic!
Quite frankly, I can't believe that adults - REAL ADULTS - have been so PC indoctrinated to run up behind everyone like a highschool hall monitor and remind everyone of some lunatic exception, which is supposed to end the argument.
It is all nonsense.
The fact is, if 85% of the population of men are one way, and 85% of the population of women are the other way, then it really DOESN'T MATTER if there are exceptions. By the laws of averages, you can begin to figure out the results, n'est pas?
If people can't get past this idiotic "generalization" argument, then people will get nowhere.
When are people gonna realize that the pansy assing around by saying "not ALL blah blah blah" is a classic ruse of Critical Theory - the theory of how to destroy things by continually criticizing it into the ridiculous? It is highly Marxist in origin, and it's purpose is to do exactly what happens. It defuses legitimate arguments which absurdities.
The fact is, men and women are different. Even in things like suicide. Women, I've read, actually ATTEMPT suicide more than men... which is why they get more funding. But, what you will notice is that men actually SUCCEED at committing suicide about 400% more often than women. I read once of an ambulance driver who said they knew the difference between a male and female suicide call. Usually the female had taken some pills, called a friend crying, the ambulance picks her up, she gets her stomach pumped, and... gets... um... ATTENTION! (What all girls want). A male suicide call, though, the ambulance driver wrote that they mostly found, well, dead men.
So, when can we generalize?
Gee... birds, bees, cows, horses, whales, snakes, aligators, emus, chimps and rhinoceroses all have identifiable male and female traits, as well as sex-specific behaviours and motivations... but us humans? HELL NO! We may be of the animal kingdom, be we are soooooo superior, of course we rationalize everything! Our instincts are non-existant. That is what separated ys from the rest of the animals, wasn't it? That we humans have ZERO instincts?
Oh wait a minute... that's not right. What we have is FREE WILL. Which really means that unlike the other animals, we have the power to over-ride our instincts (But not banish them into non-existence).
Men and women are different.
Vastly different.
Deal with it.
slwerner, going back to your statement:
"Given Rob's harsh critique, one might have guessed Mary would have taken a much different tone in an effort to show that she was not like he suggested she was."
Do you now see why I said that Mary probably knew better than to bother?
Rob Fedders - "I don't think there is a generalization out there that Laura cannot brush aside by way of singular exceptions."Frankly, I don't think the two cases involving celebrities even stand as actual exceptions.
Note that she merely gives the example that some people were questioning the behaviors of the women, yet the general "consensus" amongst both the media talking heads and the general populations were that both men WERE guilty. Other than Luara herself, I've never heard one single person, public personality nor personal acquaintance, who has ever suggested that Kobe's wife was in any way culpable.
Even her line about "I hear just the opposite - she must not have been keeping him satisfied or he would not have strayed." rings hollow.
While I have heard that sentiment expressed, it has typically been as a matter of those being of a feminist inclination claiming that wives of cheating husbands were being subjected to that shaming line of reasoning. There "point" was usually either that women should not be made to feel that way (assuming that they ever were), or, in more extreme cases, as a back-handed approach to "justifying" women’s infidelities by invoking that the same argument ought to apply in the reverse (The unsubstantiated belief that men were successfully justifying cheating by pointing out their wives “shortcomings”, being suggested as a equally valid excuse for women to use).
But, I will give Laura credit for making a decent attempt to deflect arguments for which she apparently has no cogent response.
"But, I will give Laura credit for making a decent attempt to deflect arguments for which she apparently has no cogent response."
I thought we were having a conversation, slwerner. Thanks for the backhand.
Y'all tell me again how women talk mean to men.
Laura - "I thought we were having a conversation, slwerner. Thanks for the backhand."Okay, then let me ask again: Can you honestly deny that in the overwhelming number of typical rape claim cases (true or not) that men are NOT being treated as though they are guilty - often being publicly (to increase their humiliation) arrested on nothing more than a women's word? Are you truly unaware that they are jailed, their names drug through the mud, while even women who are found to have been lying are protected from having their identies revealed.
Innocent men lose their jobs, their careers, their friends, even their wives/girlfriends, with little hope of compensation when they are found not guilty. Is this too news to you?
And what about the very common tactic of woman involved in custody disputes simply making an entirely unsubstantiated claim of DV or child abuse against their husbands? Again, in virtually all cases the man is presumed guilty, locked out of his home, denied the right to see his children, and he must work to prove his innocence. Did you not wish to consider this either?
All my point is in noting these very real examples of gender-specific injustices is to demonstrate my contention that the Gender Feminist inspired view of men=bad, women=good HAS had a very real effect in the way our legal system, and even our public conscience works?
Now, if you can point to any concrete examples of way in which the comparatively fringe argument that all women are bad has been manifest to the detriment of women, please, I'd very much like to hear them.
Mary, I re-read Trust's post to Cham and I cannot find fault with it. So I guess the love fest is still on. 8) But I am open to hearing where you think he was rude to her.
And as a matter of fact, I DID sit in a circle with other guys and drum!!!! But it was in the mid
80's, not the 70s.
But then I also read Laura's posts differently. I find her to be a fair minded person whom I enjoy talking to.
Rob, if you will take a moment, I am still interested in your opinion on whether women find it difficult to allow a man to complain at all, or if it is most prominent when speaking of gender roles and problems.
My experience says the latter. It is easy for my wife to hear me complain about my knee, but she actually rolls her eyes a bit when I talk about gender politics and the abuses against men in our system.
She hears my point eventually, and will agree with what I say about the courts and government subsidizing manless families, but it is not something that she can hear at first. She is initally deaf to it. I have noticed that with other women as well.
Even Althouse's son Jac has talked about the issue and how women react and he identifies himself as a feminist.
I would value your thoughts about it.
Trey
"But, I will give Laura credit for making a decent attempt to deflect arguments for which she apparently has no cogent response."
Why am I going to engage in conversation with you after that?
Laura - "Why am I going to engage in conversation with you after that?"My comment was made to Rob when it seemed quite clear that you would not be responding directly to the primary issue I wished to raise with you. Instead you chose to "pick" around the margins by offering anecdotes intended as exceptions which, in turn, somehow rendered my entire argument mute.
Yeah, it was a decent attempt to deflect the main argument. And, I would have made it to you as well as I did to Rob.
But, the real reason that you should engage in conversation with me further is that you don't really have any refutation my my main point - and you don't want to have to acknowledge that I am correct in my assertion.
Of course, you are free to do as you please.
If you feel that the prevailing view of men as THE bad actors hasn't been harmful to our society, then that is your opinion.
And, since the forces of Feminism and political correctness have thus far failed to silence dissenting views, I too will enjoy the freedom to express my opinions.
Oops,
I meant to say "But, the real reason that you should NOT engage in conversation with me further..."
In a related vein to this novaseeker has post another excellent essay on his blog at http://novaseeker.blogspot.com/, that is spot-on regarding the issue of gender (in)equality (and how men are clearly disadvantaged).
As a follow-up to my recommendation of novaseekers essay, this quote from it hit squarely at the heart of how women who identify themselves as Christian and/or conservative have never the less adopted much of the feminist argument:
"women as a group took a "cafeteria" approach to what feminism offered -- taking what they wanted, and resisting what they did not want."Like the man=bad, women=good basis that select posters here appear to have incorporated into their thinking.
Trey,
Sorry for not replying earlier - lol, I meant to as soon as I got a round tuit. Got one!
It's an interesting question that you ask.
I don't know how to say this without sounding rude to women, and, since the women around here think I am the rudest misogynist to roll out of the cave and scratch his hairy man-ass, who cares what the hell women think of me?
Basically, I have begun to view men's and women's empathetic abilities to be similar to that between teenagers and adults. And by that I mean EMPATHETIC ability - not intelligence or the plethora of other insults people read into that.
I mean, teens have concepts of rights and responsibilities - but when put to the test, they most often try to worm out of it. (And yes, you PC police, NOT ALL WOMEN - lol, but most of them!).
Just think about the situation of the Titanic.
Why did it work that way?
I mean, could you even today imagine a bunch of men sitting safely in lifeboats, rowing away from their wives on the deck, hearing them drowning in the distance...
No, not even today would men tolerate that.
Neither would a parent for their child.
It DOES work the other way around. A parent CAN convince a child to sit in a lifeboat while the parent accepts death... and a husband CAN convince his wife to sit safely in a lifeboat while he dies.
And, I believe this is all biologically based. It is like this for a purpose - just like the emotions of "love" serve a biological purpose.
In men, "love" is intended to be deep and intense. He feels overwhelming emotions when thinking about what he would do, and sacrifice, to protect the woman he loves. He gets enormous joy from actually giving her the things she wants, all for a smile and some affection. His love actually does run fairly deep and is intended to bond him heavily to a woman - and, it is intended to motivate him to bring things to her, which she then uses for herself and her offspring.
However, we often believe that women are monagamous, when they are not. They are polyandrous - but, they are only attached to one man at a time. Basically, "love" works on a time-cycle wherin the male/female bond/have sex and she gets pregnant. The cycle of "love" lasts about 4 years or so, and then the woman discards the man, and seeks out another man to get pregnant again. She only has 400 eggs, and this is the best way for her to ensure the genetic survival of her offspring. Mating with only one person could be devastating if a genetic defect occurs.
"Marriage" is the invention that holds men and women together through these "life cycles" so that two parents can heavily invest in their offspring - which, btw, is the mammal that needs THE most care for the longest, on the whole planet! But, without marriage being important, these "cycles of life" that women (and men) go through lead to a natural destruction of family.
So, just like children are not designed to love their parents as intensely as their parents love them back, so it is between men and women.
Children need to have "lesser love" than their parents. It is biologically proper. The child MUST leave one day and go forth on its own... but, the parent MUST be willing to sacrifice greatly to get the child there. The way that "love" works has a biological purpose.
Between men and women, men must "love" more deeply, and further, be the one to be more emotionally harmed by "the break up." - From a biological perspective, anyway. This will ensure that the man commits heavily into providing resources and will continue to do so until the female has no more use for him. And, her heart must be a bit cold towards him in order to discard him so readily for her next lover.
This is Matriarchy.
It is the natural order. The way humans live as animals.
We are not supposed to live like animals. We have free will - and everywhere in the "Universal Moral Code" (ie. 10 Commandments), we are being instructed to use our free will to NOT live as animals, but to choose to over-ride our instincts and aspire to greater things.
However, this instinct is there, and it is why men cater to women's whims so readily, while women could mostly not give a toss about the concerns of men.
I am not sure about the "physical" vs. the "gender issues" thing though. I think they are one in the same.
I think women are good at pretending to give a shit when it suits their purposes, just like teens are good at giving a shit when they need Dad's car for a date on Friday night. But, I don't think it is quite as "pure" of a giving a shit as men return to women, or that parents return to their kids.
Concern over physical harm is also far easier to comprehend - as it is something that women are used to dealing with, with children and other women.
But, chicks also dig scars, remember? That means they also dig guys who are a bit rough and tough - can take a licking and keep on ticking, as it were.
I read a quote somewhere from some famous guy who I don't remember where he said something like, "A woman's heart would still be inwardly warmed by a man she loved committing suicide over her." Something along those lines anyway, lol.
You see this at funerals all the time. A husband's funeral is almost as big of a day as a woman's wedding day. Make no mistake, SHE is the center of attention... the belle of the ball... There is a reason why there are so many stories of widows meeting their next lover at their husband's funerals.
I have been watching how the funeral thing works between men and women, btw. Very interesting.
Does it mean she is a callous, insensitive shrew that is worthless as a human being?
NO!
It is just the way it is. Women have survived for the past 12,000 years by their abilities to coax food, goods and protection out of the men around them.
A woman who does not get attention DOES NOT SURVIVE. Just like a baby that doesn't cry does not get milk.
Men are tools to women.
Just like horses are tools to men.
How would you like your horse expressing his emotions all day at you, as you plough the fields, about how crappy you treat him - and you realize, "Wow, Mr Ed, I DO treat you like an animal! Please shut up now so I don't have to feel guilty about it."
Hmmm. Guess women don't like having their "tools" making them feel guilty either.
Women just plain and simply are not designed to give too deep of concern over men - and neither are other men. However, we are all designed to "protect the herd," which is generally the women and children.
Why do women like confident men?
Because confident men are not whiners. Whiners are victims. Women do not want men to be victims - neither do men. Victim men are useless, biologically.
There is nothing "wrong" with either gender. We are this way because nature made us this way.
What is "wrong" is to ignore the obvious ways in which we interact with eachother, and make laws and such based on the crap science of the past few decades.
We should be asking "why" things were set up the way they were in the past, rather than simply ranting and railing that men in the past were 'evil' and were 'oppressing' women. (Teens are oppressed by their parents often too!). Perhaps if we can acknowledge WHY things were set up the way they were in the past, we can find solutions that actually WORK.
Basically, the only amount of "equality" that we can ever hope for between men and women is that we can both find similar levels of happiness... even though men and women often have different views of happiness. (You see, women are most happy when they get to be ten times happier than men.)
"Men are tools to women."
--------
Absolutely. I have pity on men who don't see this, though.
I've always thought that the blather about out-Real-Manning other men is kind of like a slave bragging that he can carry more stones in an hour for the master.
Men who don't SEE are usually high on themselves when the woman is in the relationship/marriage with them (... while she is pretending a bit ...) and then crash down when a divorce comes. Family court puts the cherry on the Cool Whip by also making him give lots of his hard-earned money to the person who (he feels like) betrayed him.
Any massive change of your view of the world like that (for instance when a divorce comes) means that your view of the world wasn't correct to start with.
I've seen this more than once: The man is talking about how his housewife has "the hardest job in the world". After the divorce, he is talking about how it is unbelievable that he has to fork over so much money to her, after he worked hard and she sat on her ever-widening butt watching Oprah. The bizarre thing is that the former men (pre-divorce) actually BELIEVE what they are saying at the time. I never understood that.
Thanks Rob! You gave me a lot to consider, and it is obvious that you have thought a lot about the subject. There are places where I disagree with you, but honestly, I need to put in some more thinking to get in the ballpark with the thinking you have done already.
So for now, I will think and shut up a bit!
Trey
Rob Fedders - "In men, "love" is intended to be deep and intense."Rob, I'm one of those who definitely appreciates your long, but well thought out posts. Hats off to you for that last one - just flat out brilliant stuff. Very, very enlightening.
I too have for some time felt that while women are more romantically inclined, men love women (their wives) much more deeply. The Titanic example is very apt. I'd thought to try to explain my comparable beliefs in terms of what must it have taken for ancient men to make the choice to put themselves between the saber-tooth tiger and their women, knowing that they would surely die while she made her escape to live on, and probably love on with another.
Men must have a deep love that overrides their natural inclination for self preservation. And, to be fair, we do see it in women as well - but mostly towards their children (everyone knows about mamma bears).
In an era now past, the marital bound also tied women to the relative success of their husbands in ways that made them more like Tammy Wynette, willing to "stand by their men". But today, if anyone has the unfortunate opportunity to overhear the conversations of a gathering of wives, it is all too clear that they care little for the soul and spirit - the essential human-ness of those men - they care mostly for what those men are providing for them, or, oft-as-not, not providing for them.
And you are quite right about men deriving great pride and joy from making their wives happy. I find that I am seldom happier myself than when I've made my wife happy.
Another essay I'd recommend which echo much of what I (and others, of course) have been stating in this discussion - "Cultural conservatives and the religious establishment do not care about men" (http://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/04/cultural-conservatives-and-religious.html)
Read it, and think about how posters such as Mary speak to issues that affect men disproportionately. She holds her self out as a Christian and a conservative; and she fit's right into what this essay is noting about her and her ilk.
Slwerner, thanks for the link. The article was interesting, and the comments were as well.
I am happy to say that I am having a very different experience right now at my church. We (my wife and I) are dealing with an embarassing family problem with one of my children, I have talked to two pastors and four guys friends at church about it quite openly and they have all been great and supportive. Nobody has even criticized me.
Granted, I already know that I play some part in the problem, I am one of the parents, and I am open to finding that our so I can do better, but everyone has been helpful and supportive. They offer to listen to me and they pray for me, and they have honestly been touched about the struggle and the fear it causes me.
So I am not refuting the article, but I am happy, I am VERY happy to say that some churches are doing better.
Trey
Trey - "So I am not refuting the article, but I am happy, I am VERY happy to say that some churches are doing better."Consider yourself lucky.
Joining a veritable flood of great stuff being posted lately, The Elusive Wapiti gives us his take on Christian Feminist Debbie Maken's diatribe against Christian men (http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2009/04/via-anakin-i-stumbled-across-this-two.html)
I'd recommend you also check it out.
SL wrote: "Consider yourself lucky."
I consider myself blessed! And thanks for the new website. I have it bookmarked on my computer at work.
I owe you!
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia, I have my egotistical moments. More than my share to be honest.
But I am doing a better job with remaining humble these last few days.
I hope to continue the progress! But thank you for your kindness, even if it makes JG laugh! He just knows me better than you. Now if I can only live up to your confidence in me.
Trey
Whoa, the entire context of my last post was deleted. That is weird.
Trey
Something has to really go wrong in order for a man to take his own life. Remember that these suicides aren't the "attempted" kind that women do. They are usually the real deal where even if the guy survives, he is so damaged afterward that he's not the same.
85cc免費影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片85cc免費影片85cc免費影城aa免費看aaav1688影音娛樂網線上卡通a片熊貓情色貼圖免費ava片線上看sex520免費影片免費線上a片日本av女優色色網sex888免費影片城aaaaa片俱樂部影片38ga成人成人影城※免費a長片※85cc免費影片免費ava片線上看85cc免費影城 日本a片a片 aa免費看85cc免費影城av168成人080豆豆聊天室小弟弟貼影片080苗栗人聊天室※免費影片線上觀賞※日本成人短片尋夢園聊天室kk123視訊俱樂部台灣美女圖hi5 tv免費成人影片微風成人影片微風成人區免費A片線上看aa片伊莉成人討論區台灣kiss色情貼圖sex999 免費影片sex520免費影片微風 成人論壇絕色成人影城QQ美美色網sex520免費影片免費ava片線上看色情遊戲成人情色小說百分百貼影片區日本線上免費a片85cc免費影城免費色片狂看小弟弟貼影片區本土自拍寫真a383成人影城免費視訊辣妹脫衣秀免費自拍情色電影成人動畫免費看視訊聊天室交友網aaaaa片俱樂部影片BT成人免費av18禁影片金瓶影片交流區aa的滿18歲影片BT成人論壇嘟嘟情人色網微風成人短片區伊利論壇aaaaa片俱樂部影片微風成人區sex520免費影片85cc免費影片sex999免費影片免費av18禁影片85cc免費影片免費色情短片飯島愛a片免費女優電影童顏巨乳美女圖片小潘潘寫真圖片av女優女人色色網台灣18成人網 - TW
Post a Comment
<< Home