"I wish I had a bit more courage,...."
The Spectator: "Toby Young says that Father’s Day is nothing to celebrate: today’s neutered dads have become overworked assistants to their children rather than paternal role models." Young makes some good points about dads in the article and how their role is diminished, but the main item that caught my eye was this:
I think a lot about how boys are faring in a society where they are treated like second class citizens, along with their dads. I was recently at a spa getting a pedicure and a young boy and his sister were sitting next to their mom. The young boy blurted out, "I can't help it that I'm not a girl!" in response to something they were saying. I was taken back a bit. When did you used to hear boys saying that and in a serious way?
Our society simultaneously thinks it's funny that boys have been regulated to second class citizenship and at the same time, they feel it it their "just desserts." Afterall, they must pay for whatever happened to women in past times. This is cruel and vindictive but worst of all, it is happening because we let it.
Perhaps this Father's Day, we should all think about what it mean to have "a bit more courage," when it comes to helping the next generation of boys succeed. Without courage, we (and they) are lost.
I wish I had a bit more courage, particularly as I have three sons. Among advocates of men’s rights, the main focus is on the iniquities of family law — and the bias shown towards women in custody agreements is clearly indefensible. But the people who suffer most from the diminution of paternal authority are adolescent males. A recent study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families discovered that white boys do worse in their GCSEs than Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, African and Chinese boys, not to mention girls from any background. The only groups that perform worse are ‘Traveller of Irish Heritage’, ‘Gypsy Roma’ and ‘Pupil in Care’.
I think a lot about how boys are faring in a society where they are treated like second class citizens, along with their dads. I was recently at a spa getting a pedicure and a young boy and his sister were sitting next to their mom. The young boy blurted out, "I can't help it that I'm not a girl!" in response to something they were saying. I was taken back a bit. When did you used to hear boys saying that and in a serious way?
Our society simultaneously thinks it's funny that boys have been regulated to second class citizenship and at the same time, they feel it it their "just desserts." Afterall, they must pay for whatever happened to women in past times. This is cruel and vindictive but worst of all, it is happening because we let it.
Perhaps this Father's Day, we should all think about what it mean to have "a bit more courage," when it comes to helping the next generation of boys succeed. Without courage, we (and they) are lost.
posted by Helen at 6:40 AM
58 Comments:
The thing that caught my eye was the statement on page two about how any real critique of the situation is met with howls of outrage.
I wish I had a nickel for every man I have ever seen who gets done with his day, and comes home to have a list of chores dumped on him by his stay at home "Partner" in order to "give her a break" on evenings and weekends as "his share."
Yeah, people -- men and women alike -- need to have the courage and passion to stand up for individual rights, for individual thought, for individual value and dignity.
The modern "feminists" are wicked to evil. They are nothing like feminists of old, who proclaimed women were not emotionalists, but were rational, just like men.
But speaking of emotionalism and irrationalism, if people would be objective and look at the facts, instead of being blinded by their prejudice and false ideas, they'd see that some men too are emotion-driven and are irrational; that some men and some women are rational and emotional.
And maybe they'd learn that emotion and reason are both important aspects of human consciousness and can work in harmony (if one makes the effort to be consistent in one's thinking and action).
Some (note: that's some, not all) people who comment here need to learn some of the same things, and not -- in disregard of the evidence, in disregard of the rules of induction, in disregard of the demands of objectivity -- attack women in general and Dr. Helen in particular as irrational. Human beings have free will, and as such, need to be judged as good or bad, rational or irrational, on their own merits or demerits.
Tobey Young is the kind of guy who enjoys complaining about his wife and family publicly, yet refuses to take any sort of action or responsibility the joint decisions he and his wife made about how they rear their children. If Tobey Young doesn't like ferrying his kids around to their music and swimming lessons, and doesn't like entertaining the neighborhood kids at his house, then he needs to talk to his wife about his displeasure and they can either reduce this whirlwind child time management program and simply let the kids play in the house and get the kids to come up with creative ways to entertain themselves. This man and his wife came up with this craziness, and now Mr. Young complains to the world via his blog there is no way for him off this treadmill. Does he not have choices? Is he a slave to the family? Why is he airing his family's dirty laundry to the world? Why did he choose to have 4 kids if he doesn't want to participate in their care?
As far as the wife is concerned, does she work outside the house? Does she not carry some of the burden of managing this family? I will assume she is taking on some of the challenges, but this guy apparently wants to have the glory of being a daddy without doing even some of the work of raising the kids. I'm not going to feel sorry for him, he sounds like a putz.
Just reading continuous crap like this makes me glad that I will never get into a relationship. It's just not worth it.
Guys: if you're thinking about marrying a particular woman, it's very important to observe how she treats people who are in a lower power & status position than herself. How does she treat salesclerks--hotel desk clerks--waiters & waitresses? How does she treat subordinates and support staff at work?
Because once you're married, it will be YOU that is in the lower power position. You must not assume that the way she treats you before marriage will continue: after the wedding, the power dynamics will completely change.
This test isn't foolproof: there are some women who are polite to everyone EXCEPT their husbands. But it's better than nothing.
Another useful test is her relationship with her parents. If there are problems, it will be natural for you to assume her side of the story is true and it's all their fault. Not a safe assumption.
Michael… I would agree that men have a large degree of emotionalism and irrationalism within them – especially when it comes to the most primal & irrational drive that a biological creature can have: Their sexuality.
However, I would also suggest that you take some time to be objective and study a bit about the feminists of old. They were just as wicked to evil as ever. In fact, most of the ridiculous arguments we are fighting over are well over a century old… the exact same arguments: Parental alienation syndrome, unfair divorce practices, killing husbands in their sleep, false accusations with no punishment for false accusers, gross imbalance in judicial sentences, always grabbing onto a man to blame when a woman commits a crime, cuckolding acceptance/fault of the man, wanting to be paid for housework, gross bias in the media & theatres… you name it, whatever we’ve got today, has already been here for a century (many for over a millennia). It’s not that things have “gone wrong” with feminism… but rather that feminism unleashed an underlying current of female aggression, manipulation and emotional violence that was once restrained in the same way that we currently areas of men’s life where they have uber-dominance over females – ie. Physically. What we are witnessing today is the “natural female” – unrestrained in any way by the socialization that once tried to control their nastier aspects. We are, after all, equal in sin. And remember, all throughout nature, males are the sexual servants of the females… how would they be able to do that?
Also, the willingness of other men to rush in and hush up or calm down the men who are speaking the truth is as old as time… and anyone who would be objective and study things a bit, would see that this is talked about by The Bible, Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, Bax, Weininger etc. etc. The problem is not actually the women… it is the men hopping around like idiots everytime someone speaks the truth – women do not admonish other women this way in the same that men do to other men – this is actually the heart of the problem. It’s pretty hard to control sexual instinct – it comes from our old/spinal brain, and it is not as directly controlled by our cortex/thinking brain nearly as much as we might think… although the thinking brain does manipulate the truth to justify the desires of the instinctual brain. (Jail is full of innocent people). It takes some effort to actually over-rule one’s instincts and see things objectively with the rational brain. As for Dr. Helen, she is doing just fine. Nobody respects a woman that gains respect because men prevent other men from treating her with equality – that is treating her as a child. She has an advanced degree in psychology and could probably clobber many of the men here in many ways, and yet she doesn’t. Dr Helen is going a long way to proving that not all women are like that… but it’s pretty hard for her to do that when men refuse to allow her to be treated with the equality they would a man.
Refusal to acknowledge differing instincts, life-drives, abilities, forms of aggression (& evil), while believing that men are women are “the same,” is what is at the heart of this problem.
I trust you will now go and admonish some women in an equal manner you have just done to some men… they are not nearly as hard to find. (Equality and all that...)
And hopefully this year Big Ears won’t blame fathers for all the ills of family & society without hardly receiving a peep from society at all.
Rob,
Rob says: The problem is not actually the women… it is the men hopping around like idiots everytime someone speaks the truth – women do not admonish other women this way in the same that men do to other men – this is actually the heart of the problem.
I'm not sure what you meant when you said this, please explain?
Sad_Dad,
It is like Weininger says... men view women as they wish them to be, not as they actually are.
It is very similar to how a mother views her child. She views her child as she wishes her child to be, not as the child actually is. That's why mothers are so protective of their children even when they turn out to be miserable criminals.
Men have it deep within their instincts to be protective of women, and to excuse them for all sorts of bad behaviour. Nature has designed us this way to ensure that all “levels” of humanity works. For example, nature has designed us so that children take from their parents to survive – and parents will give to children even though it makes no rational sense to do so… and so it is between men and women. Relations between men and women are designed so that the woman takes of the man & the man gives to her, and then she gives to the child… and man is designed to take from the world about him, or from other men. Males are the sexual servants of the female – they are all throughout nature as well, not just in our species. Males always do the bidding of the female… usually when in estrus, but in the human species, women have evolved to hide their estrus and so are able to manipulate behaviour from men even when they are not in a reproductive phase.
Also, one must realize that all of society is led by women's desires. What women want, society wants. What women think, society thinks.
That's why Karl Marx says the following: Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without great feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the position of the fair sex. The ugly ones included.
Karl Marx gets it from Hegel who said: "... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?"
Women are led by fashion and socialization, while men are led by principles and universality.
Aristotle says: But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.
Women “lead” society. What women want, men give them. But, if men didn’t want to give to her, what could she do about it? (Yes, she has the power of the state – but only because she wanted it, and so men gave it to her).
It is like Esther Villar describes in “The Manipulated Man” – pretty much all of the legitimate claims of “second wave feminism,” (which were mainly due to improved technology), were met in under a year. Men, however, have spent decades and not made any significant gains – but rather, have been steadily losing… mainly because of asshats like Joe Biden, using his power to crush other men and their desires, in order that he might gain favour with the females. (Even though women find men who cave in to them to be “nice,” but sexually a turn off).
Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women."
The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image."
"You are too kindhearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them."
The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?"
"Damn oil! Damn kindness!" Someone else shouted out of the crowd; "women need to be educated better!"
"Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him.
The youth, however, did not follow him.
Nietsche, 1882
Here you can read an excellent article by David Quinn, titled “Woman – An Exposition for the Advanced Mind.” It can explain it in much more detail than I can in a blog comment – it’s perhaps a half an hour read.
Oops, looks like I screwed up the link to David Quinn's essay.
Here is a copy & paste link:
http://www.members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Exposition.html
Recently I was watching a movie with my daughters and started to laugh. The movie had a typical clueless parents with the wise children. I just laughed. My daughters wanted to know why. I explained, if the parents were so stupid, how in the world did the children ever get a clue?
Our culture today too often casts the father as the scarecrow, not having a brain.
Rob:
Until I have time and desire to independently research feminists of old, I'll have rely on things I've heard from friends and acquaintances (both men and women) who I take to be reliable, honest, and objective. (Again, here, I'd judge people as individuals, and not say all women were out to undercut men just because some were. That would be a hasty generalization and would deny the fact that we have volition.)
Um. "Take some time to be objective." Meaning I have not been, or what?
Should I write off that statement as being an off-the-cuff comment, or are there some serious implications there about my thought processes and honesty?
As for your comment/suggestion: "I trust you will now go and admonish some women in an equal manner you have just done to some men… they are not nearly as hard to find. (Equality and all that...)"
Is that sarcastic? Disdainful? Rhetorical? In play? Supportive? Hard to tell without more context.
But there's no need to "now go and admonish" anyone, when I've already done that in the past. And, anyway, why would I go admonish "women," when my point is to judge people as individuals? That's too obvious a contradiction to my position.
As for your other comments, your positions on men, women, and human nature are too deterministic for me.
Yes, and obviously you are shooting from the hip and basing all of your assumptions upon hearsay and bullshit that has zero validity.
There are mounds of evidence to contradict what you say. I have just given you a plethora of it.
You came in here judging what other people were saying. I have spent several years investigating this quite heavily - and not relying upon hearsay to form my opinions.
If you don't have the time or desire, then perhaps you should mind what you say, or put a disclaimer behind it saying that "I am talking only jack shit opinions, cause I couldn't be bothered to search deeper before spouting off from a position of moral superiority that I do not deserve."
It literally has been men like you, insisting that men and women are so close to being to similar as to not warrant examination... and then yapping off about men who ARE speaking out... that has exactly caused men to become in this horrible situation.
By your own admission, what you know is not worth listening to - and you even say you couldn't be bothered. But you obviously can be bothered to criticize other men who ARE speaking out, and passing judgment just from out of your ass.
If you couldn't be bothered, then why are you so bothered to criticize those who do care?
Lol, that first link didn't go through either - I am computer-challenged today.
It was E. Belfort Bax's "The Fraud of Feminism", written in 1913.
http://menstribune.com/bax.htm
There are gender-specific traits that go much deeper than we would like to think. All of the philosophers from antiquity up until the early 20th Century acknowledged them and studied them quite closely. It is a study in human nature and how the sexes interact...
Bax is the easiest to read - and one of the shortest... a mere few hours to understand that this is always the way it has been between men and women, and why things were the way they were. Nothing has changed, except that by removing the things that once restricted female specific aggression/sin (because we assumed they were like men, when they were not), these thing are now merely happening to a larger percentage of the population.
It doesn't mean we have to go back... but it would suggest that we acknowledge these things about human nature, and use them to formulate proper solutions for going forward into the future, to find an equitable amount of happiness for each of the genders. The only “equitable” solution is to seek similar amounts of happiness.
The research couldn't be easier for you, Michael... now comes the bother...
To those reading this thread, I am not responding to Rob because he has just shown himself to be fundamentally hostile and irrational.
His first response to my post could be considered intellectual and concerned, in some way, with truth.
But these last two responses were just over the top.
Telling me what I believe, not asking? Claiming I am in the wrong without gaining evidence to do so, or asking any questions? Wow.
Normally, people ask questions and procure information, because they grasp that each individual is sovereign over what he believes, and is the source of that information. I just learned something new: not Rob!
The scientist Wolfgang Pauli would classify claims as right, wrong, or not even wrong. Rob's claims are "not even wrong."
I don't care to dignify irrationality with recognition or sanction.
No doubt there will be another burst of rudeness, profanity, hatred, jumping to conclusions, character attacks, ad hominems, etc., after this. Oh, well. It won't be worthy of attention.
Geez. Back to reason and reality...
Well, Michael, were you not interpreting what other men believe, and condemning them for it?
Yes or no?
And were not spouting out heresay and opinion out your ass?
Yes or no?
And were you not spouting out falsety without even bothering to even research what is in front of your eyes?
And have you scolded a fembot today?
You are out of your league, Mangina - by your own admission.
The only thing worse than a fembot is a mangina.
Reason and reality would dictate that you at LEAST examine the thousands of years of human existence before dismissing it with your PC Wand.
Seriously... Manginas really piss me off.
As per the "objectivity" that you think you are a student of... are you aware that Ayn Rand and Feminists are vicious enemies?
I think they might hate her about as much as Sara Palin.
Go Ayn Rand!
Michael,
You seem to say yourself that you haven't really looked into this in depth (you just rely on what other people say, apparently).
But then you also shame people from a position of high moral superiority.
That's what it looks like to me. And that's what Rob seems to be correctly saying.
Feminists would just be foot-stomping, spoiled-brat freaks without the support of chivalrous idiots and manginas. The chivalrous idiots and manginas are probably the enemy to focus on. They may gather a little bit of favor with women (... or not ...) and a pat on the head from society for selling out other men, but they wouldn't know truth or reality if it hit them on the head. They don't care about that.
And the face of the chivalrous idiot with the award-winning fake grin is: Joe Biden.
A sideline subject which interests me from time to time is the Mutiny on the Bounty – and more to the point, their life on Pitcairn Island afterwards with 9 mutineers, 6 Tahitian slaves and 11 women – 9 wives/consorts for the mutineers, and 2 for the Tahitians to “pass around.”
It is a good little example of what happens in a society when we abandon our moral structures – and have a severe sexual imbalance and so on.
When one of the mutineer’s wives died, they took one of the Tahitian’s women to replace the wife who died – they didn’t care much about the Tahitian men, and treated them like slaves anyway (men willing to stomp on other men). This resulted in fighting between the men – the Tahitians fighting against the mutineers, until the Tahitians and some of the mutineers were dead, and also there began to be killing between the mutineers, as they created their own little “Lord of the Flies” situation, and the men began eyeing eachother up funny and began pole-axing eachother to death within 4 years, until there were only two mutineers left – one in extremely poor health due to asthma, who died only a few years after the fighting stopped. At the end of 10 years, there was only one mutineer left (John Adams) and nine women (one died of disease, and one died by falling off a cliff while collecting eggs).
The women were not innocent in all of the fighting though. But, whereas the men were running around eyeing eachother up funny, not knowing who to trust and fighting as individuals, the women aggressed differently. They colluded together to aggress against the men and they killed a few of the men by their own hands.
Several times there were plots of revolt discovered amongst the females – who were planning to kill all of the men in their sleep. With each subsequent plot that was discovered, the remaining men vowed to execute the next female ringleader of a revolt… except that each time a new plot was discovered, the men could not bring themselves to mete out punishment to the offending woman, and forgave her… only for a new plot against the men, in a similar fashion, to happen shortly afterwards.
It was when there were only the two men left that they decided to follow the Bible & its subsequent structure for society and sexual morality that the violence and plotting ceased… and thereafter, the little colony and the children of the mutineers began to prosper peacefully. (By the time there was only John Adams left, there were 9 women and 23 children).
This type of thing happens over and over again within human nature – and something similar is happening in our society today. Men will knife eachother in the back while competing against eachother individually while the women will band together as a group to knife men in the back. It is deep within human nature for things to work this way – it is also deep within men’s nature to find excuses to forgive female transgressions.
Pitcairn Island
"Horrific as Jeanie's and Isobel's experiences were, they were typical of what girls growing up on Pitcairn – home to just 51 people – endured for generations. In 2006, after an investigation by British police, Young was convicted of raping the sisters. In total, nine Pitcairn men were found guilty, six of them at trials in 2004 on the island.
...
The colonial files contain evidence that Britain was repeatedly warned about unsavoury goings-on in this distant outpost of Empire. In 1950, a New Zealand teacher stationed there notified British officials that a 10-year-old girl had been raped so violently "as to cause the child physical injury".
Another teacher reported on a spate of schoolgirl pregnancies, which he attributed to "interference with children by grown men". Those schoolgirls included a 15-year-old, Vanda Young, who died in childbirth because her body was not sufficiently mature.
Britain saw the island's birth records, which revealed that most Pitcairn girls had their first baby between 12 and 15. It was also sent the minutes of council meetings, including a meeting in 1970 at which the "raping or illicit carnal knowledge of a girl aged 11 years" was discussed. None of these warning signals prompted any official action."
Yeah, they have had quite a sexual abuse scandal lately. They even built a prison on the island for the convicted men. I have also read that they used to practice “genital fondling” to “soothe children”… which actually used to be found in several different cultures in the past.
Keep in mind though, the Mutiny on the Bounty happened in 1789 - and they arrived at Pitcairn in January 1790.
They also relocated the descendants back to Tahiti - where several of them died due to having no immunity to disease... and so several of them returned to the island... and they were again relocated, later, to Norfolk Island because they "outgrew" the island... and again, several of them returned to the island within a few years.
Today there are 48 people living there, I think.
The whole thing about "what happened" after they arrived is a little difficult to decipher too, as even though some of the men back then actually married the Tahitians, it is apparent that the women didn't understand what was happening... and when they left Tahiti, they pulled anchor and kinda tricked/kidnapped the Tahitians into coming along with them.
There is quite a bit of speculation as well, as to whether Fletcher Christian was a "good guy" or not. He was also one of the first to be murdered.
When they were discovered some 18 years later, they found that the stories about "what happened" conflicted often too - John Adams himself changed his story several times - and there is much speculation that his involvement, and the result of him being "the last one" means certain things were doctored by him... lol, the whole island is an enigma. I'd love to visit it someday, as I've read about it quite a bit over the years. Pretty bloody isolated though.
What's also interesting about the Pitcairn sex-scandal is that first off, it was the Tahitian women that carried on the culture... things like genital fondling came from the women transferring in parts of their culture... and back then, Thursday October Christian, the first person born on the island, was married off to a woman two decades his senior, while in his middle teens - as in, rape, by today's standards. Also, although the Tahitian women were basically kidnapped, they also started killing as a means of revenge for their murdered husbands – so, although there were women who were highly unsatisfied after arriving, there were also those who must have been somewhat satisfied as well – notable is that the women aggressed together. Thursday October Christian died in 1831 on Tahiti, leaving a power vacuum amongst the descendants. Also, later on, they adopted Seventh Day Adventism as their denomination, while in the beginning, they wouldn’t have been – not that there is anything particularly wrong with Seventh Day as opposed to say, the Church of England.
Also, it’s a little sketchy as to what happened so far as the sex-scandals are concerned, as in, because the island cannot sustain too large of a population, there is a lot of emigration – mostly to New Zealand, a highly feminized country. I followed the trials along, and depending on who you read, a lot of the time what would happen is when they would arrive in New Zealand, then they would find out they had been abused. They don’t really have TV signals and such out there, given that they are located between Tahiti and Easter Island – just a 2 x 1.5 mile “speck” in the Pacific Ocean. Although, this has changed recently due to satellite & the internet.
Lol, there have also been false accusations and recantations.
Btw, the accused/convicted men are not particularly despised on the island, as one might suspect would happen in our culture.
But, I don’t particularly understand your point, Laura. The history of the world is not one big long list of men abusing hapless women, you know. Back to the beginning of your low-level “emotional terrorist cycle” again? Perhaps you can explain your motives a little better.
This wasn't a rhetorical question, Laura... I would like an explanation of your motives.
I'll bet you a Tim Horton's doughnut that Laura knows about Pitcairn because she trolls vicious feminist sites. Eh, Laura?
I'll bet you a soon deflated US dollar that Laura finds it offensive that I talked about women's behaviour 219 years ago, as equally valid towards society as men's behaviour...
"I wish I had a nickel for every man I have ever seen who gets done with his day, and comes home to have a list of chores dumped on him by his stay at home "Partner" in order to "give her a break" on evenings and weekends as "his share."
Wow. I probably did once or twice at the end of a long day, because contrary to popular opinion, (some) housewives don't sit around the house all day. It used to seem only fair to me that he should be willing to work until the work is done, the same way I do. Then I woke up and realized that he's just not going to do that. So here's how it goes:
I work my butt off at home. So does my husband at work. It goes a lot like Archie and Edith around here: I make dinner, he eats it. I wash dishes, he dirties them. I put the kids to bed, and hope he'll read them a story or give a bath for me while I finish up the schoolwork or cleaning. He watches tv for a while, or plays a game, or does some programming. I pick up the dishes he leaves by the sofa when he goes to bed. Then I join him in bed for sleep and other stuff. The baby cries. He sleeps through that, too. He has no boobies, so this is natural and I don't resent it.
In fact, I don't resent any of it. I work here. He doesn't. I'm not complaining. What I do resent is the idea that a woman is "dumping" responsibility on her husband when she expects help with the children he helped create.
Again, I don't mind doing everything but the lawn around the house. It's the way we've arranged it, and we like it, but you could show a little sympathy for a worn-out mama who probably just wanted the friggin' trash taken out.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/matheol.html
“This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn’t stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn’t care less whether her words are wise of foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there’s not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn’t want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.”
That wasn't directed at you Insignificon - but at Laura.
"In fact, I don't resent any of it."
---------------
Sure you do, Insignificon, or you wouldn't be writing what you did above that.
You make dinner. He eats it.
Sounds really bad until you remember that he PAID FOR IT and paid for the whole house and the cars and everything else from HIS hard work. And I can just tell from your post that you probably make his life a nagging hell when he is at home.
Housewives have a pretty easy "job", they just don't know it. On top of being supported and shielded from real life, they can let their mouths constantly run in a way that would get someone fired in a real job.
You absolutely take his job for granted, but you want lots of sympathy for your much easier "job". I would rather be tortured than support a woman like you, and I can't even stand talking to sit-at-home women at social events now - I just ignore them. Grow up.
Rob, I go to bed at night. The last time I engaged in conversation with you and then went to bed, I got up to find that you had apparently been sitting up in a rage and leaving comments all night long - "Helen isn't in charge here, I am" - and things of that nature. I was kind of shocked, actually. I've been having conversations on the net for years, with all kinds of people, and have never run across anyone else who could not tolerate a give-and-take discussion.
If I say "boo" to you and you have a stroke, I'll feel bad about that. So I can't really converse with you.
I will answer these two questions:
What was my motive? The point of posting what I did about Pitcairn Island was that you were acting like everything had settled down and was peachy-keen. Which I guess it was, if you weren't a little girl being raped. For people who care about that sort of thing, your use of Pitcairn Island to demonstrate how things are or ought to be is kind of flawed.
How did I know about Pitcairn Island? Because I read, and pay attention.
I will have no further discussion with you while you are using ugly language like "emotional terrorist" to me. Grownups can converse without that.
Bullshit Laura and you know it.
And don't act like you're some kind of victim here. And if you're going to talk about that thread, Laura, then why don't you also talk about how you purposefully mocked men's dire health concerns? It’s not like people get pissed off at you just out of the blue. Or, why don’t you discuss how you show up on other people’s blogs playing the dumb “I don’t get it” over and over and over again, and even when they talk patiently to you, you just continually escalate, and then run away like a victim when you don’t get your way. And why don’t you discuss how you do this for months on end?
You certainly are an emotional terrorist. And you do exactly what emotional terrorists do... long term, low-level aggression, and then you act surprised that people get pissed off with you and pretend you’re a vicitm.
And you’re a smug supremacist too.
Why don’t you discuss how a modern day sex scandal has any bearing on something that happened over two centuries ago, which is what I was talking about? Btw, if you would read, you would also find that when they were discovered, and during the years afterwards when ships began to call at the island, they were quite a chaste people and there was not a rash of single/unwed mothers such as the lifestyle you are suggesting – even though they were all living virtually naked. Can you get anymore out of context, Laura?
Grown-ups don't walk behind other people and find any excuse to nit, nit, nit. And grown-ups don't continually quote out of context and then fake being a victim when they are, in fact, an aggressor.
God help your poor husband. What a tormented hell he must live in. Don’t worry buddy, one day death will set you free of her.
Okay, let's go back to men's health.
The complaint was that breast cancer gets more (privately funded) research than prostate cancer. My "mocking of men's dire health concerns" consisted of me asking how come men can't do for prostate cancer or any other concern that they have, what women, mostly through the Susan G. Komen foundation, have done for breast cancer.
Let me see if I can break it down for you in little bitty words.
Person A has a problem.
Person B has a similar problem.
Person B takes steps to solve her problem.
Now Person A has a choice. Does he take steps to solve his problem? Or does he complain that Person B's problem is getting attention and his isn't? And further, that Person B isn't doing anything to solve Person A's problem, because she evidently just doesn't care about him?
And you say that I am playing the victim? Good grief.
Go screw yourself, you miserable little snippet.
Here is the thread. There was a discussion going on about prostate cancer funding not being equal to breast cancer funding… and I merely pointed out that it is not just prostate cancer that is lacking, but in fact all funding for cancer that is lacking for males – given that males have a 50% chance of getting cancer in their lifetime, as opposed to a 33% chance of females getting cancer – and I merely pointed, from personal experience that in fact, the whole healthcare/cancer system is designed for females, and not for males… and then they turn around and blame everything on men for “not taking care of themselves.”
I then pointed out that men lead the charge in all of the top ten fatal diseases, and in cases like heart disease, the problem is that men are dying premature deaths due to heart disease far more often than women, and we could go miles to solving the “life expectancy gap” by solving heart disease in middle aged men… but, since women also have heart disease when they are elderly, the screeching is on to increase funding for women, but not men… and then they also point out that women are doubly victims because they must live longer than men, and they are victims of loneliness.
Btw, I also acknowledged that Dr. Helen has had health problems in this regard, and said I didn’t want to downplay her health concerns, because they are important, but that she is the exception, not the rule… it is men who most often have shorter lives because of heart disease – not women.
And what do YOU do, Laura? You read through everything what I write and you pick out the word “screeching” and start attacking me for it.
Just like you did on this thread… you read through it closely and look for one sentence out of several paragraphs… and they you attack me for one sentence – and totally misdirect the entire thread.
You will notice Laura, that when you make comments here, I don’t pick through every sentence what you say… and in fact, I rarely even comment on what you say – except for when you come at me for comments of what I say – like you are doing in this thread, and like you did in regard to healthcare. Mostly I don’t bother with your comments that aren’t directed at me because what you say is usually just crap.
You are an aggressor, Laura – and a miserable shrew.
Emotional Terrorist.
"Let me see if I can break it down for you in little bitty words."
-------------
You do have quite a bit of skill in being irritating.
"Now the screeching is on to increase funding for women's heart disease."
Laura: Nice. Should I have accused Novaseeker of "screeching" about prostate cancer?
Rob: Nice, that heart disease is the leading cause of the Life Expentancy Gap between men and women, and women's heart health is taking precedence over men's - again.
Rob: It's also "nice" that when women's life expentancy surpassed men's in every nation, women celebrated it as a "victory."
However, there are also now those who claim victim status because they are forced to be elderly and alone, because their spouse died much earlier.
Whatever direction you go...
Laura: Why don't you screech about it. Whatever it is that you characterize as "screeching" evidently gets results.
Rob: I am. And it never fails that some snot-mouthed female supremacist shows up.
Want me to find an example?
This is one area where I will drop all chivalry towards you, Laura.
I have been so vicious about this, I pesterd all 300+ Members of Canada's Parliament with daily e-mails - especially targeting the Minister of Health - that he complained to the Mounties about me... Lol! I hadn't broken any laws though, and after that, started pestering him for thinking the Mounties were his personal Gestapo.
Laura: Notice my original point. You can screech your head off about prostate cancer. If a woman starts a foundation to fund breast cancer research, you can screech about that too. Guess which cancer is going to get the funding.
Screeching here won't get anything accomplished, Rob, except to make you feel better. But go ahead. Maybe a woman will start a foundation to address men's health issues, if you screech enough.
Rob: In fact, my heart is already pounding faster because of you.
This subject makes my hands tremble.
Laura: Well, I don't want to give you the vapors any more than I already have, so I'll stop.
Except to say that if you use ugly words like "screeching" then you really shouldn't complain when other people don't walk on eggshells when they talk to you. Most people learn this in middle school.
Rob: Go blow it out your ass, you smug little supremacist.
Laura: Waaaaaahhhhh! I’m a victim! Rob’s a meanie!
This happens over and over again with you, Laura. You are not “innocent.” You are an aggressor.
Since March 6th. The first time I encountered the infamous Laura.
Laura: JG and Rob: If you were to make a list of the attributes an ideal woman would have, what percentage of that list would be taken up by physical attributes and what percentage by personality (mind and heart)?
Just asking.
Because y'all remind me of nature shows I've seen where duck eggs have gotten into the wrong nest and the resulting ducklings raised by a mama of a different species. They grow up to a lifetime of loneliness, attracted to ducks who are totally unsuitable to them and want nothing to do with them, while ignoring the ideal duck-mates that are right in front of them b/c they don't look right.
I think you are attracted to what you (think you) do not want, and oblivious to what you do.
Laura: I'm not arguing, Rob. I'm just asking, and BobH confirmed my suspicion.
There could be a woman of your acquaintance who has the heart of an angel, but she's fat or has harsh features, and you would die before you'd be seen with her in public. Instead you confine yourself to self-absorbed princesses, and then when the inevitable happens, you turn into the equivalent of male feminists and start woman-bashing. Seriously, I put you and the angry feminists in the same category: "Half the human race are evil, wretched people! Just by virtue of being men/women!" Not a dime's worth of difference between you.
But hey, if that makes you happy, who am I to argue.
And on and on… notice that back then I was being fairly nice to you, and taking time to explain things in great detail to you? It was you who stomped off my blog
in anger because you couldn’t derail my arguments with your senseless drivel, and you have been escalating your aggressiveness ever since.
After three months of your little nit, nit, nit… it’s a bit rich to expect that people should not be getting pissed off at your smug little attitude.
JG, would it occur to you that my irritating statements are in response to anything? Do you think that you are ever irritating? Do you think Rob is? Is it that y'all can talk any way you want to, but there is some standard I am supposed to adhere to?
This for instance:
Blogger Rob said...
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/matheol.html
“This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn’t stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn’t care less whether her words are wise of foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there’s not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn’t want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.”
12:39 AM, June 20, 2009
Blogger Rob said...
That wasn't directed at you Insignificon - but at Laura.
Was I not supposed to find that irritating, JG?
Y'all gripe about double standards but you apply them to yourselves.
You all call me everything but a child of God and I promise I bite back 90% of what I could say here b/c you, Rob in particular, can't handle it.
I didn't "stomp off your blog in anger", Rob, I stopped posting because you were getting upset.
Low-level, longterm aggression. That’s exactly what’s going on here – Laura can’t go whining that I am treating her poorly – she showed up here on this thread and started posting completely irrelevant crap with the purpose of being aggressive.
Imagine two guys named John and Mike.
Every time John comes up to Mike, he pokes Mike in the chest.
Mike is irritated by being poked in the chest by John and tells him to stop… John is still being fairly nice about it though.
The next time John sees Mike, he walks up to him and pokes him in the chest, and he keeps doing it every time afterwards that he sees Mike… poke… poke… poke.
After a month or so of this, Mike gets pissed off and screams “STOP POKING ME IN THE CHEST, YOU &^%#W&!
Then John runs away, pointing out to everyone what an asshole Mike is – “All I did was give the guy a playful poke in the chest, and he freaked on me!”
The next time John sees Mike, he again pokes him in the chest… Mike is now pretty pissed off at John and says, “Look, if you poke me in the chest one more time, I’m gonna poke you in the nose with my fist.”
John sees Mike a week later, and runs up to him… POKE!
Mike clenches his fist, winds up, and PLOW – right in the nose!
John runs away, “Waaaaaaahhhhhh! Mike is a meanie! He punched me in the nose, when all I did was give him a playful poke in the chest.”
Uh huh.
John is the aggressor – not Mike.
Don't be a bullshitter, Laura. I gave you clear evidence on my blog, backed up by several scholarly studies, to show the stereotypical difference between male and female aggression... and you came back with a snot-mouth about YOUR daughter's experience... and then played victim by saying you felt uncomfortable arguing with me on my blog.
I was not getting upset on my blog - I was patiently explaining things to you - over and over and over again. Anyone who would take the time to read those 20 commments would clearly see that... as well as that first thread I encountered with you.
You DID piss me off about healthcare, because even when I made it clear that I had a personal involvement with this issue that bothers me, you still turned around and had a snot mouth supremacist attitude.
You are a shrew and an aggressor who intentionally tries to piss people off.
Don't be surprised when they actually get pissed off with you then.
"she showed up here on this thread"
Like you showed up on the thread where Novaseeker and I were talking and he mentioned the diff between funding for prostate cancer and breast cancer?
I'll tell you why I picked on "screeching". I was reading your comment, every word, paying attention to it and what you were saying, and that word stopped me in my tracks. Because you now had placed a negative value judgment on women trying to take care of themselves. It derailed your whole point.
If you have a point to make, why do you have to do that?
"even when I made it clear that I had a personal involvement with this issue that bothers me, you still turned around and had a snot mouth supremacist attitude."
I am supposed to respect your personal involvement with an issue that bothers you, even as you make ugly statements about my marriage and advise my husband to leave me.
It doesn't work that way, buddy.
Blow it out your ass, dopey - I did not attack ONE WORD what you said there - I just said "a quick note on prostate cancer funding - and then explained quite clearly what I meant."
Go screw yourself, Laura.
On this thread, I gave a clear, historical example of the differences between male and female aggression.
I ended it by saying that they returned to the Bible and followed the structure and morality it provided... and the violence etc. stopped and they began prospering.
And YOU show up posting an article about a sex scandal happening TWO CENTURIES later, which is somehow supposed to discredit what I said about their life after some horrific violence between 1790 and 1800, and their solution thereafter.
I suppose by your logic, Jesus Christ should be discredited because some modern day priests have been convicted of sex crimes. Doesn't the same logic follow? Aren't you a Christian?
Good grief, you're a purposeful, aggressive idiot.
Don't go complaining that Mike punched John in the nose, while ignoring John's longterm involvement in creating the situation.
You are an emotional terrorist.
Boo hoo that after you attack people, they aren't polite to you.
Were you really expecting a different result?
Oh - and my "snot mouthed supremacist attitude" was me not agreeing with you that if women address women's health issues then they are obligated to address men's health issues as well.
JG, I'm not being irritating, am I?
Get lost, you jerk.
I merely pointed out to A MAN who was talking about Prostate Cancer funding, that it is not just PROSTATE Cancer that is sorely lacking, but ALL cancers - since men are the majority victims of cancer, not women - and yet the funding and subsequent programs are directed way more at women. That is not trying to derail your argument with aggressiveness; it is simply making a clear point, about something which I understand pretty intimately.
And the "screeching" definitely IS on to increase heart research for ELDERLY women, as I pointed out with a link further up this thread - even though heart disease is the major cause of the life expectancy gap between men and women. To increase heart research funding for elderly women will INCREASE the life expectancy gap even further – something a smug little supremacist like you probably believes is justified.
You looked through everything what I said, and then chose the word "screeching" to start bitching about... a typical tactic of yours - just like you did on this thread - I ended by saying they chose to follow the guideline of the Bible, and the bullshit on the island stopped... and then you picked one little aspect, and distorted it to the extreme by talking about a sensationalized rape trial TWO CENTURIES later.
Don't tell me you're not being aggressive.
And the next time I write something, you will again pick through it with a fine toothed comb and look for ONE word or phrase, and distort it to the extreme with the INTENTION of starting an argument.
You are full of shit, you "innocent" little victim who can't even tolerate not having the last word.
Poke… poke… poke…
Oh for pete's sake. How many times have I let you have the last word. And I will here b/c I'm not responding to you any more on this issue. Go ahead and post five more comments about what a "miserable little snippet" I am.
(JG, was that irritating?)
I won't say I'm not aggressive. I will say that everything you accuse me of - being irritating or whatever - you do a thousand times more than me. But that's OK for some reason. I guess I need to shut up, take my shoes off, and go in the kitchen.
You have never let me get the last word yet, Laura - except for on my blog that one time when you played the “uncomfortable victim” (there wasn’t a crowd to play to) or when I start poking fun of you for not allowing anyone else to get the last word.
You might walk away for a day, but you'll show up and start chirping away again in one way or another. I am not the only person you do this to.
It irritates you enormously to not get the last word. It really must be hell to live with a person like you.
As for the miserable snippet – if the shoe fits…
Btw, I have never said that women belong in the kitchen – that is just you passive aggressively distorting what I say again.
Word.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"It is better to live in a corner of a roof, than in a house shared with a contentious woman."
"It is better to live in a desert land, than with a contentious and vexing woman."
"A constant dripping on a day of steady rain and a contentious woman are alike. He who would restrain her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand."
JG.
Number of comments by Rob on this thread: 26.
Number of comments by me, including this one: 10.
And I'm contentious?
Lol, as Rob likes to say.
Rob has never used the word "contentious" in his life, up until now. Just like he has never said that women belong in the kitchen… in fact, he quoted Proverbs 31 and said that women were not working hard enough.
Is this more of the "I've never read any radical feminist literature” crapola?
Word.
"Rob has never used the word 'contentious' in his life, up until now."
My comment was directed at JG.
"Is this more of the 'I've never read any radical feminist literature' crapola?"
Now what?
What are you, twelve?
Word.
I look at the exchanges among some of the posters and I realize, "Damn, the time machine really does exist. I'm back in fifth grade.!!!"
Nice of you to chime in, Aureliean.
Now why don't you take a chance and expand upon your observations.
Be forewarned... there are no punches held back here... they all smack upon the nose.
I would suggest you separate yourself from the mangina class.
Post a Comment
<< Home