Men Living Longer: Women Hardest Hit
The New York Times has an article today entitled, "The Bell Tolls for the Future Merry Widow"(Hat tip: swlip.com). In this pathetic excuse for an article, the theme appears to be that because men are living longer, this might put a cramp in women's lifestyles. For example:
And then the article points out these pearls of wisdom from sell-out, I mean psychologist, John Gray:
John Gray needs women more than women need him -- who else would buy his stuff? Yeah, John, that will help you sell the remainder of whatever sell-out crap for women you are peddling this month.
Finally, this advice from another "expert" really puts the icing on the cake:
Hell, if I was married to a woman like the author of the Times article, Kate Zernike, I would probably die early too. However, with fewer young men marrying, maybe women like her coming up won't have to worry about a husband. I hope that with increased longevity and Viagra, men will find that living single in their later years will beat out a black--I mean, merry widow--who wants nothing more than a free lunch herself.
There's a famous parody of a Times headline -- "World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit." But this is beyond parody: "Men Living Longer: Women Hardest Hit" (Hat Tip: swlip.com).
By necessity, women have gotten used to a life lived for long periods without men. They have had the advantage in life expectancy since the late 19th century, when overall longevity started to climb. More than men, women have developed strong friendships to support them in their frailest hours. They have forced doctors to pay attention to their health concerns. They no longer have to cater to men. Travel companies now cater to their interests.
And then the article points out these pearls of wisdom from sell-out, I mean psychologist, John Gray:
"Women don't need men as much as men need women," said John Gray, the therapist and author of, most famously, "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus."
"Men have this expectation that women should take care of them," Dr. Gray said. "And she has her own expectations, that she should be there for him."
Particularly after retirement, she is not used to having him around quite so much. "It's different taking care of him for dinner, as opposed to him being home all the time, and expecting her to make every meal," Dr. Gray said.
(Men who divorce also remarry faster; within three years, compared with nine for women.) They're looking for love, Dr. Gray said, but they're also looking for lunch.
Then there are the disputes over sex. Dr. Gray said a woman's sex drive increases as she ages, while a man's declines. But then, is Viagra upsetting that balance, putting men in retirement homes permanently on the prowl?
John Gray needs women more than women need him -- who else would buy his stuff? Yeah, John, that will help you sell the remainder of whatever sell-out crap for women you are peddling this month.
Finally, this advice from another "expert" really puts the icing on the cake:
And a shorter widowhood means women will be better off financially, largely because, as Heidi Hartmann, a labor economist and the president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said, "Money attaches to the men."
There is a lot of poverty among older single women, so if men live longer, that's good economically, for women and men," Ms. Hartmann said. "Men are generally happier when they're married. The women may not be happier, but at least they've got more money.
Hell, if I was married to a woman like the author of the Times article, Kate Zernike, I would probably die early too. However, with fewer young men marrying, maybe women like her coming up won't have to worry about a husband. I hope that with increased longevity and Viagra, men will find that living single in their later years will beat out a black--I mean, merry widow--who wants nothing more than a free lunch herself.
There's a famous parody of a Times headline -- "World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit." But this is beyond parody: "Men Living Longer: Women Hardest Hit" (Hat Tip: swlip.com).
posted by Helen at 4:09 PM
288 Comments:
Is there a correlation between fewer men marrying and men living longer?
This is a wonderful example of lumping many people's experience as if it is a single experience, and trying to draw conclusions from it.
I'm all for statistics showing us the broad trends of what is happening to people, but it's a bit over-the-top to guess how people's feelings are going to change. When you are old and your spouse dies, you grieve, even if the death is expected. Doesn't that fairly overwhelm whatever subsidiary feelings we might have?
We will have other feelings, of course, each to his own kind.
In a recent BMJ editorial Life expectancy: women now on top everywhere
BMJ 2006; 332: 808, the authors gloat over the lower world-wide life expecancy of men (article requires registration; a copy is available here, and letters to the editor are available).
This attitude of delighting in the earlier demise of men comports with the New York Times piece. A more sinister aspect of this exclusive preoccupation with women's health is that it is a preoccupation with white, middle-class women's health: the neglect of men's health disproportionately hurts that canary in the coal mine: the African American man.
Just as a lack of concern about low male college enrollments exposes an ugly complacency about the fate of African American men (half of 20 year-old black men are unemployed; by their mid-30s, 6 in 10 black men high-school dropouts had spent time in prison--these trends are attributable to poor schooling); preoccupation with women's health has been at the expense of African American men in particular (among all men).
My mother has been a widow for over 10 years. She has many friends in the same situation. They play cards, go to exercise class, travel together, and generally make the best of the situation... but I don't know any of them who are the least bit happy about being widows.
I like your outspokeness, Dr. Helen. But sometimes I have to ask, what do you have against women? Why the anger and the resentment? Sure, there are plenty of things in this life that are unfair, but surely you are not going to deny that women have been on the bottom rung for the most part until recently.
I for one, am not going to start any pity party for white men.
Americanwoman,
“I, for one, am not going to start any pity party for white men.” Nice. I don’t think Helen is against women; rather she’s for men, which is the point here. And I can’t speak for Helen, of course, but as for me—I don’t want your pity because it seems to come with baggage.
Rick Lee,
Same deal with my mother—a widow of twenty years this May. She got the money but what she wants—to this day—is the man.
Jeff
AmericanWoman -- are you sure you aren't Greg Kuperberg?
I wonder what Ronald Lee the economist meant by this: "Even given the limited capacity of men..." Limited capacity of men?
The article certainly is convoluted and does almost everything possible to put good news in a negative light as well as entirely from the perspective of how increased life expectancy affects women.
While it barely touches on changing social norms, i.e. more men cooking, cleaning, etc. it largely ignores them and draws on examples of my parents' generation and before. And why is it that mowing, painting, household repairs, killing insects :-), etc. are never counted as domestic chores by those counting the woman's workload.
And I don't know about men needing women. I guess it may be unusual for a man not to be desparately seeking a woman. I post I wrote several months ago about not actively seeking a date or to re-marry still gets hits almost daily. I happily cook, clean, do laundry and the rest for myself and my kids just knowing someone can't take it all from me just because they are "not happy" any more. There is no significant woman (or man but I'm not gay) in my life and I've never been happier.
My mother was "hardest hit" when my dad died a short while ago. True, she no longer has to make all those meals for Dad, now she makes them for herself and has no one to talk to across the table.
And people wonder why men are finally beginning to stand up against feminism.
Sick!
Americanwoman wrote: "I like your outspokeness, Dr. Helen. But sometimes I have to ask, what do you have against women? Why the anger and the resentment?"
Americanwoman is displaying one of those reasons why I consider American "feminism" to be a mental illness, specifically the zero-sum perspective that any support of or appreciation for men and men's issues MUST adversely affect women or women's interests.
>>>>>Sure, there are plenty of things in this life that are unfair<<<<<
In this sentence, Americanwoman actually acknowleges that the status quo in America is unfair to men........
>>>>>but surely you are not going to deny that women have been on the bottom rung for the most part until recently.<<<<
..... while simultaneously trying to justify present injustices toward men in terms of actual or imagined past injustices toward women.
Actually, women have not been "on the bottom rung" at all, contrary to feminist ideology / "Womyn's Studies" where Americanwoman was perhaps taught that her ancestors suffered oppression by men.
The fact that men have historically DIED to protect and provide for women has been presumably conveniently "forgotten".
Women were certainly "on the bottom rung" when the Titanic hit an iceberg all right...........
........ on the bottom rung of the ladders leading down to the lifeboats!
Americanwoman is likely one more good example why American men ought to hold off marrying American women.
Until America's women loudly and firmly denounce such bitchy misandry, not to mention the brain-damaged aspirations to perpetual victimhood, they simply ought to be avoided when possible (except for recreational sex).
Even then, wear a condom!
Helen,
As someone who will have a real PhD in psych, I have to mention that John Gray "PhD" does not. Here's the relevant info from Wikipedia:
Gray's books and other publications typically refer to him as 'Doctor John Gray' or 'John Gray, Ph.D'. According to his website, he earned a Ph.D. in psychology at Columbia Pacific University[1] - a correspondence school that was forcibly closed by the California Department of Consumer Affairs in 2001 after a judgement that found that CPU "awarded excessive credit... to many students" and "failed to meet various requirements for issuing Ph.D. degrees"[2]
Also, I love how that moron says that women "aren't used to having men home all the time." You know why? Because they were working. Boy, isn't it terrible that now an old man gets to finally retire and stay home with his wife?
Americanwoman -- isn't discrimination not just gendered (and raced), but classed, as well -- and arguably, far more so the latter than the formers? In fact, hasn't the vast majority of humanity, both males and females, been 'on the bottom rung', alike and together, for the vast majority of our history?
Haven't the differences in power and status between both males and females of the peasantry, versus the power and status of males and females of the aristocracy, been much greater and far more discriminatory than the differences between males versus females within each of those classes?
Which would you have rather been, historically -- a male peasant, or a female aristocrat?
The vast majority of human beings, male and female alike, have throughout history been used and abused by a bullying, brutal, ruthless elite -- which was also composed, likewise, of both males and females. Before women could vote in the usa, could women, as slaveowners, nevertheless buy, sell, "own", and thereby use and abuse other human beings at their whim -- including men?
Which would you have rather been, in recent american history -- a male slave, or a female freewoman?
I have been feeling sort of down this weekend, but I've got to tell you that your comments about Dr. John Gray provided me with some much-needed comic relief. Thanks for telling it like it is!
Off-topic:
Acksiom,
I have been on the lookout for your ID for some time now.
Years ago, I read one of your apparently infrequent posts on Yahoo's message boards about male genital mutilation.
Your post contained the physiological equivalent of MGM with respect to the theoretical equivalent for women (not the results of actual FGM procedures!).
I actually copied your post containing that info. to my local hard drive for use on message boards against those individuals favoring neonatal MGM, but lost the contents in an unfortunate disk crash.
Can you repeat for my benefit what that theoretical equivalent to MGM would entail?
Thank you in advance.
americanwoman: That's a very sexist point of view. There are men here, reading this blog, who have faced and continue to face life threatening discrimination fostered by government decree. Any person who looks at them with distain cheapens and distorts us all.
AS for the New York Times: This newspaper revels in misandry. This newspaper sells BECAUSE it is sexist.
The boss at the NYT once said that misandry is honorable and the right way to present the facts. The current bosses still believe in his view of the world.
Women's health and concerns rule our society: This is a great wrong done to ALL PEOPLE. We cannot make a move into a better society without not only saying that the over focus on women's matters is wrong, but that it is a threat to the very survival of the society.
The over conecern on women scares our female population out of all proportion to the real risks to our females: It also debases our males which increases stress and anxiety in the male population. Moreover, by over focusing on females we ensure our scientists miss information which is important to the lives of both sexes.
While it is true that males are indeed living longer, that longer life is not in any way a factor of our society treating males better. The primary factors are men quitting smoking, accident reduction in industry (Ontario now has only 280 men die each year as opposed to 700 men each year only two decades ago) and baby boys who would die even a decade ago are now living. These few things account for the growing male life expectancy.
None of these things are a factor of the health care system treating males as fellow humans to females. Look for the gap to slow its closing and start getting bigger. This must happen due to the near total contempt thrown at the male population.
Glad you blogged this. I had serious cognitive dissonance when I read the article in the morning... I was scratching my head and looking for some hint that this was a parody...
Also, it is well known that John Gray got his PhD from a degree mill (that may have closed down by now), so I don't like him being called a "Dr."
From the BMJ article Little Lion links to:
"The year 2006 should not be allowed to pass without at least a quiet celebration that this is the first year in human history when—across almost all the world—women can expect to enjoy a longer life expectancy than men.
[..]
"Almost 30 years ago, amid much fanfare, the eradication of smallpox was announced.6 But when it becomes certain that women everywhere can expect to live longer than men, also a remarkable achievement, a similar announcement is unlikely."
Yeah, no announcement because that would be equivalent to celebrating the return of smallpox, I would suppose?
Then American Woman admits she is a racist sexist, while not even noticing that she did it. Who needs mushrooms anymore? But I'd rather just wake up.
"Journalist Living Longer: Readers Hardest Hit"
Great post. When can men and women stop playing zero-sum games?
"The year 2006 should not be allowed to pass without at least a quiet celebration that this is the first year in human history when—across almost all the world—women can expect to enjoy a longer life expectancy than men."
Hmm, yes with a few of notable exceptions:
Saudi Arabia:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.33 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.13 male(s)/female
total population: 1.2 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
United Arab Emirates:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.55 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 2.73 male(s)/female
total population: 1.43 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
Oman:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.44 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.23 male(s)/female
total population: 1.25 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
(all stats from the CIA World Fact Book)
These countries have population trends wholly opposed to the worldwide norm.
AmericanWoman: Sure, there are plenty of things in this life that are unfair, but surely you are not going to deny that women have been on the bottom rung for the most part until recently.
Chris Key Says: In regards to your comment about women being on the *bottom rung until recently*, I would like to state the following.
The claim of *Patriarchal Oppression* is the GREATEST FALLACY to ever exist, as women have NEVER been oppressed in the Western world as can be verified by the following:
- Women were offered a large amount of legal impunity by Old English Law, and the current system has retained the same chivalrous nature that existed during the 18th and 19th centuries.
- Women were not required to take responsibility for their actions during the Old English Law, as only those who served in the military, owned property and were able to vote (suffrage) were held accountable for their behaviour by the state.
If the act of giving women legal impunity is a form of *Patriarchal Oppression*, then a LOT of men would wish to have been born as women during the 19th Century, as the women of the time were able to commit illegal acts with the knowledge that they would receive legal impunity for their behaviour, and on the odd occasion that they MAY have been required to pay a fine, then it would come out of their husband's earnings.
More Information On The Subject Can Be Found By Visiting The Following Link:
http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/Belfort_Bax.html
The Traits That Are Shared By Feminists and Neurotic Women
(i) An attempt to gain the moral high ground by claiming that women have been the victims of *Patriarchal Oppression* for thousands of years - they fail to offer a single shred of objective evidence to verify their insinuation - however they fail to mention the following:
- The current generation of men were NOT alive during the so-called period when women were claimed to have been *oppressed*; therefore why should the men of today endure an abundance of persecution and punishment for acts they never performed?
- The current generation of women were NOT alive during the times when women were claimed to have been *oppressed*; therefore why should the women of today receive a perpetual amount of privilege and pampering at the expense of the men?
(ii) The claim that the imagined sins of the past mean that the women of today should be allowed to persecute men with impunity; and allow the state to ostracise any man defends himself in the process.
(iii) An inability to discuss the subject at hand, which leads to the usage of ad-hominem arguments, straw-man arguments and other logical fallacies as the crux of their response to anything that does not conform to the rhetoric of feminism.
These are the same traits that the *National Socialists* utilised during the 1930's - the period when the Jews were persecuted - when the Germans were brainwashed by an insane Austrian who was almost as delusional as Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas.
What an interesting post to read on the morning of my anniversary. My wife (who is ten years younger than I) says that I'd better not die soon, because she didn't marry me for money but for my company. (This is good, as I'm an artist and don't have a lot of money)
As for women not being used to having their husbands around 24/7 before they retire, I wonder if Dr. Gray works from home as do I and a lot of creative professionals?
matt andrade
Matt Andrade,
Good point. A lot of couples now--both men and women work from home and are used to having each other around constantly.
I wonder if Dr. Gray expects his wife to feel as negatively towards him as the way he thinks women feel about men. I sure hope not as all the book sales in the world cannot make up for the insensitive gold digger he would have to be married to. However, maybe he is getting what he deserves, given his penchance for thinking that women are the self-centered boobs he thinks they are. The truth is, that many women are grief-striken from the loss of a husband and find that their world is not the free-wheeling merry widowhood that this silly article would have one believe.
We all need each other.
g
Feminist marketing sells.
The message that men a bad and women are good or that men are dishonorable and women are victims are the norm. I no longer wonder why fewer people watch television or read newspapers, instead I speculate, that like myself, many others now use the Internet for information and entertainment.
I also stopped attending my church (Willow Creek) because of the constant feminist messages in the plays and sermons.
Women have equal access and opportunities, as such the feminist movement ought to be over.
“World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit”… too funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights
If this is the view that some women have, it certainly explains why many men are resisting getting married. Apparently when we do, we're not dying off soon enough and leaving women with our money so they can go party.
Wow, sign me up for that.
Anyway, that whole article was more insulting to women that it was to men. Contrary to what "Americanwoman" might think, Dr. Helen's criticism of it is a tribute to woman (insofar as she is suggesting that most women don't act like that), not evidence of her disdain toward them.
What did we expect from the Times?
"By necessity, women have gotten used to a life lived for long periods without men."
I'm only going by what I've read above, but it looks like he's saying that somehow women are "used to" life without men (in other words having men die off at a younger age) before they ever live a life without men! What utter tripe! How in the world do you get used to being a widow before you've ever been one?
"Particularly after retirement, she is not used to having him around quite so much."
So let me get this straight - a couple has a complete change in lifestyle upon retirement... and he is shocked because there is a period of adjustment. (but apparently only for the woman - the man has no adjustment to make to retirement at all as far as I can determine from this article)
"(Men who divorce also remarry faster; within three years, compared with nine for women.)"
Is this stat for older women and men or for all women and men? It's a well known fact that there are far more older women than older men. Therefore, the reason for this lopsidedness is so simple it practically leaps up and smacks us in the face... A woman can't marry again if there is not an available man to marry! Seems pretty straightforward to me. Then again I hate statistical references like this - they mean ZERO in the context of the article because we have no way of knowing how the stat was derived.
With just a quick read through the portions you've posted, these are only a few of the items I could pick on. All in all - seems like a pretty lame article saying, once again, that women are better off without men.
TO: Dr(?) John Gray
RE: Dear John
"It's different taking care of him for dinner, as opposed to him being home all the time, and expecting her to make every meal," Dr. Gray said.
I do 95% of the cooking in this household, bozo.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The vast majority of the truly great cooks are men.]
I think a lot of women are unable to remarry when their spouses die because men tend to marry younger women...and so the pool of available men their own ages gets very small.
As for "Merry Widows", I think they make the best of it because they have to. I had a friend in her 90's. After 20 years she said that seeing his name on mail/documents was painful--she still missed him.
I'm sure if I lost my husband I'd feel the same way. He's the light of my life (most days!)
Here is an interesting article about the possibility that all of us may live to be 100. Changes the retirement planning a bit, eh?
There is a drug out there better than Viagra.
No doctor's prescription required.
You might have to ask your kids where to find it.
Re: circumcision.
It is being promoted in Africa as a way to reduce the risk of AIDS.
It may not be mutilation after all. It may be a health measure.
The studies of cuircumcision and HIV in Africa were discontinued early because the results were so overwhelming that it was considered unethical to maintain a control group of uncircumcised men.
I don't know how the custom arose way back when, but perhaps it was because of experience.
Interesting how a mild question from AmericanWoman sets off the wingnuts. C'mon, denying that men have held the upper hand in the Western world for centuries? You're just kidding yourself. Hell, try reading some Jane Austen for the most genteel of perspectives on how women were helpless before the law.
And, as a guy, I agree with AmericanWoman: Helen seems very anti-woman to me, and not in just this post, it's pervasive throughout her blog.
And having some demanding geezer around constantly can't be too fun: it's already a recognized social problem in Japan.
Imagine if that NYT article was just some post on a random blog. Would it be worthy of wide scale distribution and rise to the top of the ten thousand or so blog posts today? Nope.
If every "insightful" piece from the NYT had to compete like that on a daily basis, well, I think I know what would happen.
"And having some demanding geezer around constantly can't be too fun: it's already a recognized social problem in Japan."
Euthenasia is the answer--it's chivalrous to gracefully end it, rather than impose upon spouses who underestimated their partner's lifespan ('till death do us part, already). Nature often enfeebles us, in preparation for the end. Let us hope that the targets of this sexist ageism are too far gone to recognize it.
I'm not a great fan of the poor old BMJ which I've only ever read much for the jobs section before I attained fame and fortune as a hospital doctor: but to be fair I think the celebration is about getting to grips with high maternal mortality in childbirth, and maybe female infanticide come to that. You don't have to be neurotic or feminist to think that's good. The point is that when the're not killed off prematurely by such things, women live longer than men.
[I'm male and my wife tells me I'm not a New Man]
I agree with AmericanWoman that it is terribly unfair that men held sway for so long. It has been especially difficult for me, as women make up half of my direct ancestors. (Coincidentally, same for my wife.)
And yet I suspect that AmericanWoman is being hypocritical here - she may very well have a family tree composed of one half men herself.
Men need women? Evidently you've not been to San Francisco or Hollywood.
>>>>Interesting how a mild question from AmericanWoman sets off the wingnuts.<<<<<
Interesting how a wingnut like you considers such obvious sexism to be "mild".
Perhaps you simply fail to understand that most feminazis actually DO BELIEVE in "zero sum" politics.
Perhaps you don't even understand what the concept entails.
Here's Americanwoman's exact quote:
"I like your outspokeness, Dr. Helen. But sometimes I have to ask, what do you have against women?"
In fact, Dr. Helen is pro-men, NOT anti-woman, which is the relevant point, wingnut.
>>>>>C'mon, denying that men have held the upper hand in the Western world for centuries? You're just kidding yourself.<<<<<,
C'mon, yourself. Anyone who uses past actual and imagined offenses by men to justify today's misandry are the ones "kidding themselves".
>>>>>>Hell, try reading some Jane Austen for the most genteel of perspectives on how women were helpless before the law.<<<<<
Hell, try reading some history books for the most REALISTIC of perspectives on how women were protected before the law.
>>>>>And, as a guy, I agree with AmericanWoman: Helen seems very anti-woman to me, and not in just this post, it's pervasive throughout her blog.<<<<<
As a guy, I think that you're a nutjob, and that Dr. Helen is certainly pro-man, but certainly not anti-woman.
I also doubt very much that you are ACTUALLY a guy - more likely you're one of those idiotic females who believes that masquerading as a male adds some credibility to "his" misandry.
On the other hand, it is possible that you're a neutered male........
>>>>>and having some demanding geezer around constantly can't be too fun: it's already a recognized social problem in Japan.<<<<<<
And how would that be better than having some demanding hag around constantly, Einstein?
Japan has "recognized social problems" regarding the aging of their population including BOTH genders.
They don't have noteworthy problems specific to aging men. Get your facts straight.
Eric:
Take some advice from one who's been there: Regurgitating the pablum you were taught in your college gender studies course will not -- I repeat, not -- get you laid.
Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."
Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."
"The point is that when the're not killed off prematurely by such things, women live longer than men."
The horrible thing is that the good doctor appears to be serious.
Guess what, doctor? I can now reveal, exclusivly on this web site, that if men were not killed off prematurely by various things, they would live as long or longer than women. Amazing how this works, isn't it?
I've known plenty of men and women who have been victimized, including myself. And last I checked I still had working boy parts.
What's Helen's game? Couldn't say. a woman who runs a slant this heavy, you wonder why.
Maybe she's got a game. And maybe she's just a disenchanted and/or disenfranchised professional in a field that disenfranchises anyone not disposed to groupthink (like many men), has had health problems (like many men, including kind of health problems) & is outspoken, opinionated, inclined to candor and honesty, discinclined to dissemble and finds that she prefers the company of men and has a greater sympatico for the XY set.
Most of my college friends I've kept in touch with are of a similar make & model. Other side of the political spectrum, but the slings and arrows they suffer are the slings and arrows men suffer more then women.
Most of them haven't figured out that most of the archers are Amazons, but hey, they're my friends.
I'm a feminist? Maybe, but while I don't think women should be discriminated against (and anyone who says they are not is a twit) but I also don't feel they should get preferential treatment.
What I object to in the blog is the perceived (by me) nastiness of it.
You want to talk about the rights women had in merry old England? How about the right, nay, the DUTY of a man to beat his wife if she misbehaved. And shall we even go to Saudia Arabia or Iran to see how women fare around the world? Or the fact that black men (newly freed slaves) had the right to vote in the US 60 years before any women did.
Yes, there are plenty of gold digging C***s in the world, but you silly men keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a big pair of boobs and big eyelashes. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve.
Incidentally, if it's a spasm of vitriol against the majority of middle-aged, self-important, self-serving, limping, gimpy, sacrifite mo-fo white males born roughly between the years 1946 and 1964, you need look no farther then me. But the dames ain't any better.
On the whole. It does not follow that because the majority of a given demographic fits a certain pattern that individual members may deviate from that pattern.
Americanwoman, you haven't the courage to identify yourself. Your pity is neither needed nor desired.
Many of us, men and women, face discriminatory circumstances or bloody misfortune confounded by the American Lie, that great green breast of a world which is, was, and has, save for brief shining moments, been a fiction.
I expect Helen and I could have a fine screaming match regarding pure capitalism vs. compound economies.
I have a friend from the gym, a 19-year-old kid, who has an eye for physical and social detail that astounds me. And I'm sharp. He was confined to LD classes and received detentions for, among other things, challenging a teacher who screamed in the face of a classmate who was 90% deaf. Don't tell me that's right.
I have a business card in my wallet given to me by a woman, a professional, a realtor, whose working third shift at a local convenience store until "things pick up." They won't. She invested the time and energy in a profession that is failing and is presently consigned to the dead hours at night, more dead hours during the day. Don't tell me that's not right.
Tribal interests are killing this country. The battle of the sexes is a hot war. We can stop fighting each other and play off each other's strengths or we can continue this petty slander until some other species develops opposable thumbs and takes us in our blind space.
See, the way it works is like this: We can fight for each other and with each other or we can play the race card, the sex card, the ace of diamonds card.
What my eyes perceive is that 40 years of Gloria S. styled feminism men have learned to exceed women in manipulation, groupthink bigotry & every petty gimmick and whispering sniper shot the female species ever knew. And women can't ask for directions when they're lost, even after they've driven around the same block six times. They've learned thuggery, playground brutality & subsumed male egotism, that need to control everything and anything around them.
This is so progressive.
Save the pity.
From m. simon:
>>>>>Re: circumcision.
It is being promoted in Africa as a way to reduce the risk of AIDS.<<<<<
In fact, male genital mutilation destroys the first line of defense against HIV: the mucosa of the glans (and inner foreskin), which contains immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme, a potent HIV killer also found in tears and mothers' milk.
Male genital mutilation is being "promoted" in Africa because male genital mutilation is profitable business for those companies supplying the instruments and medical supplies used during the procedure (who are happy to fund "studies" attempting to provide proof that male genital mutilation provides medical benefits in those Third World nations whose governments are willing to tolerate such "research").
The American medical establishment and surgical supply companies have promoted male circumcision as a preventative measure for an astonishing array of pathologies, ranging from masturbatory insanity, moral laxity, aesthetics and hygiene, to headache, tuberculosis, rheumatism, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, paralysis, alcoholism, near-sightedness, rectal prolapse, hernia, gout, clubfoot, urinary tract infections, phimosis, cancer of the penis, cancer of the cervix, syphillis and AIDS.
In fact, genital mutilation has NOT been proven to provide any such medical benefits, according to the AMA and every medical authority in developed nations.
The only rationale which has clear, well established scientific support is the one originally and openly used by the medical establishment when medical circumcision was introduced as a "public health" measure in the Victorian era.
That is, to punish and control the sexuality of male children.
Being the most widely practiced surgical procedure in the United States, it is also lucrative business, since the hospital and physician performing the procedure not only charges for these "services", the foreskin tissue is often sold afterwards to cosmetics or biotech companies for "testing purposes".
Could you imagine the uproar if clitoral tissue were removed from America's baby girls, then SOLD for a profit?
The double-standards in America regarding genital integrity of our nation's boys and girls are revolting.
>>>>It may not be mutilation after all.<<<<
Cutting off perfectly healthy genital tissue is indeed mutilation, according to any intelligent interpretation of the word "mutilate".
>>>>>It may be a health measure.<<<<
Actually male genital mutilation is no more a "health measure" than female genital mutilation is (and although both have been promoted as "health measures", neither MGM nor FGM have been proven to provide health benefits).
Both MGM and FGM provide plenty of drawbacks.
Asian and European medical authorities have long since determined that the pain and trauma of neonatal male genital mutilation exposes their infants to unnecessary physical and emotional issues and no longer routinely circumcise their boys any more than they circumcise their girls.
Here's some of the physiology lost through male genital mutilation:
A typical Western circumcision results in the loss of approximately 50% of the total surface area of the penis and between 50% and 80% or more of its erogenous sexual nerves including:
- The Taylor "ridged band" [sometimes called the "frenar band"], the primary erogenous zone of the male body.
This unique, highly specialized and exquisitely sensitive structure is equipped with soft ridges designed by nature to stimulate the female's inner labia and G-spot during intercourse.
- The frenulum, the highly erogenous V-shaped tethering structure on the underside of the head of the penis.
- Between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can feel slight variations in pressure and stretching, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.
- Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles, which are also found in the fingertips.
Also lost are:
- The foreskin's gliding action, the non-abrasive gliding of the shaft of the penis within its own sheath, which facilitates smooth, comfortable and pleasurable intercourse for both partners.
- The "subpreputual wetness" which protects the mucosa of the glans (and inner foreskin), and which contains immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme, a potent HIV killer which is also found in tears and mothers' milk.
- Estrogen receptors, the purpose of which is not fully understood.
- The foreskin's apocrine glands, which produce pheromones.
- The protection and lubrication of the erogenous surface of the penis, which is designed by nature to be an internal organ like the vagina.
http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/
If anyone asked me why I read Dr. Helen from time to time I'd tell them this: It's a relief to find an accomplished woman who doesn't believe men are guilty until proven innocent.
As for the trend of men not marrying, I'm part of that crowd, and while I'd like to get married and raise a family, I've seen too many of my friends come home from a business trip to a handwritten note followed soon by a phone call from a lawyer not to think twice about the whole enterprise.
How have I failed to identify myself? Your rambling posts doesn't really make much sense.
Americanwoman, you seem to forget that past chivalry PROTECTED women, while you seem to prefer not to mention that (and while you might not care to call yourself a "feminist", they often seem to have the same "blind spot", coincidentally enough.
Also from one of your posts:
>>>>Yes, there are plenty of gold digging C***s in the world, but you silly men keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a big pair of boobs and big eyelashes. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve.<<<<
A woman's gold-digging capabilities are limited by her attractiveness, and if you believe that men are "silly" for being attracted to "hot" women, then you ought to also call women "silly" for giving in to THEIR biological urges to reproduce (which would make them as approximately as silly as men!).
As for men "getting what they deserve" with gold-digging women, that's as moronic as claiming that rape victims get what THEY deserve.........
........or that domestic violence victims "get what they deserve".....
...... and if you actually believe such nonsense, then you certainly are NOT a feminist (or a particularly savory character, for that matter)!
What is circumcision doing in the comments here? BTW in Africa the incidence of AIDS is much lower for circumcised than not.
>>>>>What is circumcision doing in the comments here?<<<<<
I brought it up in an off-topic question to Acksion. Another poster replied with a fair degree of ignorance which I felt obliged to correct.
>>>>>BTW in Africa the incidence of AIDS is much lower for circumcised than not.<<<<
Regarding AIDS in particular, it should be noted that among the industrialized nations, AIDS is positively correlated with circumcision.
Indeed, of the industrialized countries, the USA has by far the highest AIDS rate and the second highest circumcision rate, the latter second only to Israel.
This flies in the face of recent, widely reported but deeply flawed surveys of AIDS and circumcision in Africa, which did not control for the strong correlation between the circumcision status and the socioeconomic status of African men.
Muslim men, for instance, tend to be both circumcised and non-promiscuous.
In circumcising tribes, intact men may tend to be shunned by women, and to frequent prostitutes.
In more secular African cultures, circumcised men tend to have access to the western model of medical care, and so are less likely to have easily treatable STDs such as gonorrhea, the presence of which causes genital lesions which promote the passage of the AIDS virus.
Europeans rarely circumcise their boys, and their per capita HIV/AIDS incidence is a fraction of America's...... and Africa's.
In any case, a causal link between intact male genitals and HIV transmission has never been demonstrated, and confounding factors, such as the pathogen-killing secretions under the foreskin, may well result in a net loss of biological defenses from MGM, even before the behavioral and structural anatomical consequences are considered.
For instance, the dried out internal organ which is the end of a circumcised penis provides less lubrication and so increases abrasion during intercourse, creating possible infection sites in both partners.
This may account for the nearly 5-fold difference in US vs European male-to-female HIV transmission rates.
I prefer to have equal rights by law and not be 'protected' by my husband/father/brother if it means he can also control me.
The rest of your comment is sick nonsense.
>>>>>I prefer to have equal rights by law and not be 'protected' by my husband/father/brother if it means he can also control me.<<<<
Nothing wrong with that preference (although if your life were actually threatened, you would almost certainly flip-flop so quickly that even experienced ballet performers would applaud!)......
>>>>>>The rest of your comment is sick nonsense.<<<<<<
Not nearly as "sick" as your inability to separate pro-male from anti-female, it isn't.......
...... at least to anyone not hiding behind the door when IQ's were being passed out.
So in order to have myself 'protected' in a life threatening situation, I have to give up my freedom to have a man protect me. Sounds pretty chauvanistic to me. I'd rather get a gun permit.
I'm not pro-female or anti-male. I just choose not to ignore the fact that women and blacks and other groups did face discrimination and that is why now, arguably, there are laws and programs to adjust that. The fact that there is now backlash testifies to the fact that these programs have been successful.
Can't stand the competition, white boy?
"It's different taking care of him for dinner, as opposed to him being home all the time, and expecting her to make every meal," Dr. Gray said"
What. The. F---.
Can this clown really be serious? Has he been asleep for the last 30 years? I understand he published what was basically a long, academic-prose style version of Cosmo but that sentence couldn't be more condescending if he added a reference to her womb making the woman irrational.
Americanwoman:
"Maybe, but while I don't think women should be discriminated against (and anyone who says they are not is a twit)"
You just read an original article, a follow-up article, and about 50 posts illuminating in various detail how men are being discriminated against.
Your parenthetical aside would seem to reveal your real problem with Dr. Helen. She observes that men today are -present tense- net-sufferers of discriminatory policies and trends. You refuse to concede that point to her, and think she's a twit.
That's your issue with Dr. Helen. Spare us the "hostility" and "anger and resentment" pap. And I find that suggestion of horror that lowly negroes were allowed to vote before women to be deliciously revealing.
You're right, of course, on your stand concerning freedom and self-determination vs. protection and chivalry. Every person should have (and have had) the right to determine their own fate and be responsible for themselves. The fact that society didn't agree does not give women born after the fact the right to live as first class citizens at the expense of men also born after the fact.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eric Said: Interesting how a mild question from AmericanWoman sets off the wingnuts. C'mon, denying that men have held the upper hand in the Western world for centuries? You're just kidding yourself.
Chris Key Says: Another delusional soul has decided to preach the feminist mantra of *Female Victimhood* - this one demonstrably crazier than a drug-addicted schizophrenic - yet he has failed to offer a single shred of evidence to verify his unsubstantiated claim.
While the *chivalrous feminist supporter* likes to preach the mantra of *Female Victimhood*, he fails to understand that anyone who possesses a detailed knowledge of the Old English Law System can repudiate his claims to the very core.
Belfort Bax wrote a wonderful book in the early 20th Century, and in the process he used objective evidence to prove that the 19th Century Law system oppressed men and offered a vast amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege to women. In the process he offered a variety of citations to actual law acts of the 19th Century that offered women impunity, which clearly refutes the claim that women were *oppressed* by the legal system.
An online copy of Belfort Bax's "The Legal Subjection of Men" can be viewed at the following link:
http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/Belfort_Bax.html
Another feminist fallacy was the claim that men were allowed to batter women with an object no larger than their thumb during the middle ages, however the myth has been refuted by Christina Hoff Sommers who used objective evidence to prove that the act of 'battery against women' was prohibited in the Western world during the implementation of the Old English Law.
An online copy of her work can be found by clicking the following link: http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm
Here is a citation From http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm
"The "rule of thumb," however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. [51] It is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.
That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.
According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers ... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs."
Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. [52]
Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of "modern folklore" and compares it to other "back-formed explanations," such as the claim that asparagus comes from "sparrow-grass" or that "ring around the rosy" is about the bubonic plague.
We shall see that Hiscock's hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-80), the Englishman who codified centuries of disparate and inchoate legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organised tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, universally regarded as a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife beating does not occur in Blackstone's compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted "domestic chastisement":
The husband ... by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children.... But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife.... But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband.... Yet [among] the lower rank of people ... the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty in case of any gross misbehaviour [emphasis added]. [53]
Blackstone plainly says that common law prohibited violence against wives, although the prohibitions went largely unenforced, especially where the "lower rank of people" were concerned.
In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery [54] The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":
It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal.... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating-, and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine." [55]
She points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $255 to $1,000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. [56] For most of our history, in fact, wife beating has been considered a sin comparable to thievery or adultery. Religious groups - especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists - punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbours often took vengeance against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them. [57]
Eric Said: Hell, try reading some Jane Austen for the most genteel of perspectives on how women were helpless before the law.
Chris Key Says: Jane Austen merely stated that the inheritence law ensured that the bulk of a families fortunes were handed down to the male heirs, however she failed to acknowledge that women received a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege in return.
Eric Said: And, as a guy, I agree with AmericanWoman: Helen seems very anti-woman to me, and not in just this post, it's pervasive throughout her blog.
Chris Key Says: Dr. Laura has merely stated the negative aspects of modern culture and how men are affected by such practices, and if interpret that as a form of *misogyny* then it shows you are unable to comprehend her arguments. Perhaps you would like to offer a citation to an actual incident in which Dr. Laura discussed the ad-hominem traits of women rather than the logical fallacies of their behaviour? I doubt you can complete the task, as I have never seen Dr. Laura commit such a flaw, and I am inclined to believe that you MIGHT be trying to gain a good reputation with the misandrist who calls herself *AmericanWoman*.
Eric Said: And having some demanding geezer around constantly can't be too fun: it's already a recognized social problem in Japan.
Chris Key Says: Such a claim has never been verified by any form of objective evidence, and it is only the subjective feminazi's in the Japanese media who have tried to infer that elderly men are parasites because they're no longer working to support the *demands* of their wives.
>>>>>o in order to have myself 'protected' in a life threatening situation, I have to give up my freedom to have a man protect me.<<<<<<
Which moron told you THAT nonsense, and why are you stupid enough to believe her?
You don't HAVE to do anything of the sort, only pay taxes and die.
In fact, if your life were actually being threatened, even idjits like yourself almost always look to men for protection.
>>>>>Sounds pretty chauvanistic to me.<<<<
That's a hilarious point.
Like most women with their heads rammed so far inside their rectums that they couldn't possibly remove those, even if they wished, you yammer and bleat about "chauvanism" until the shit hits the fan, and some scumbag is ready to rape/rob/kill you (or all of the above) and then you would undoubtedly scream for the nearest male so loudly that the yellow pool that you were standing or lying in would resonate.
>>>>>'d rather get a gun permit.<<<<<
Many Americans do, and I don't blame them one bit. Having a gun permit likely still wouldn't affect your lighting flip-flop in the event that some scumbag threatens to rob/rape/kill or all of the above.
>>>>>I'm not pro-female or anti-male.<<<<<
I don't particularly give a damn what you call yourself.
You claim that you're "not pro-female or anti-male".
I claim that you're "not particularly honest or the brightest bulb", based on your question to Dr. Helen about being "anti-female".
>>>>>I just choose not to ignore the fact that women and blacks and other groups did face discrimination and that is why now, arguably, there are laws and programs to adjust that. The fact that there is now backlash testifies to the fact that these programs have been successful.<<<<<
You apparently choose to keep your head carefully insulated from reality through keeping it safely inside your rectum.
The fact that there is now MISANDRY (not "backlash", dimbulb) testifies to the fact that those "programs" were promoted by feminazi misandrists, since those are the individuals who hate anyone born with a penis instead of a vagina.
>>>>>Can't stand the competition, white boy?<<<<<
Actually, as a man, I am well-accustomed to "competition", my simian "genius".
I would prefer to compete on a level playing field though.
Fair treatment is PRECISELY what MOST men actually want, which you might understand if your ears were not rubbing against your lower intestines.
Remember "equal rights"?
Forgot already?
How about "equal responsibilities, my furry Rhodes Scholar?
Try to keep up.
Fourthwire,
There are no level playing fields. Only weenies whine about the playing field.
Dr. Helen, you're doing a great job, but you were way too soft on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's former gofer "Dr." John Gray. Why the quotes around "Dr."? Not for postmodernism, but because his degrees are from the not-so-esteemed Maharishi University and the no-longer-accredited diploma mill known as Columbia Pacific University. Doubters can find the sad details through Google search.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AmericanWoman Said: You want to talk about the rights women had in merry old England? How about the right, nay, the DUTY of a man to beat his wife if she misbehaved.
Chris Key Says: Another feminist fallacy was the claim that men were allowed to batter women with an object no larger than their thumb during the middle ages, however the myth has been refuted by Christina Hoff Sommers who used objective evidence to prove that the act of 'battery against women' was prohibited in the Western world during the implementation of the Old English Law.
An online copy of her work can be found by clicking the following link: http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm
Here is a citation From http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm
"The "rule of thumb," however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. [51] It is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.
That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.
According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers ... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs."
Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. [52]
Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of "modern folklore" and compares it to other "back-formed explanations," such as the claim that asparagus comes from "sparrow-grass" or that "ring around the rosy" is about the bubonic plague.
We shall see that Hiscock's hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-80), the Englishman who codified centuries of disparate and inchoate legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organised tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, universally regarded as a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife beating does not occur in Blackstone's compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted "domestic chastisement":
The husband ... by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children.... But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife.... But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband.... Yet [among] the lower rank of people ... the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty in case of any gross misbehaviour [emphasis added]. [53]
Blackstone plainly says that common law prohibited violence against wives, although the prohibitions went largely unenforced, especially where the "lower rank of people" were concerned.
In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery [54] The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":
It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal.... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating-, and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine." [55]
She points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $255 to $1,000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. [56] For most of our history, in fact, wife beating has been considered a sin comparable to thievery or adultery. Religious groups - especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists - punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbours often took vengeance against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them. [57]
-----------------------
Looks like AmericanWoman is just an uneducated bigot who does not understand the actual history of Old English Law. Perhaps she should educate herself on the subject before she cites the fallacious feminist myth's that have already been repudiated.
>>>>>There are no level playing fields.<<<<<
Then it's about time to bring in the heavy equipment and MAKE SOME level playing fields, Einstein.
>>>>>Only weenies whine about the playing field.<<<<<
LOL.... Focus your teeny little simian mind for a moment, if you possibly can.
When women "whined" about the nature of the playing field decades ago, programs went into place to provide them with preferential treatment.
Perhaps you believe that those women (and their male supporters) were "weenies"?....;-)
More and more American men have figured out that simply silently accepting unfair, unjust treatment at the whims of misandrist bitches does nothing to improve their lot.
More men have chosen to fight back, including those men who will not marry American women, not to mention those men who are angrily questioning the motives of 27-year-old stripper/single mother/aspiring law student Crystal Gail Mangus, the scumbag of a D.A. in Durham, and the mainstream media who originally had practically displayed the Duke lacrosse players as guilty of rape even before the overwhelming lack of evidence of any rape started being published..... and they have been all backpedalling ever since.
There has ALREADY been some small degree of progress toward a "level playing field", although much more needs to be accomplished for America's boys and men's rights.
wwww.mensnewsdaily.com is just one of the forums where men get men-related
news, outside of the mainstream media (which frequently caters to feminazi interests).
The Internet has proven to be a wonderful tool for men's- and fathers-rights groups, if you have not noticed.
The feminazis are FAR from beaten, to be sure. VAWA is evidence of that.
On the other hand, America's men's marriage strike has accelerated and that, plus other men's- and fathers-rights endeavors are gaining attention, and support among men, plus those decent, fair, men-loving women such as Doctor Helen and Wendy McElroy, for example.
So stuff your comments about "only weenies whine" about misandry.
Increasing numbers of men are mad as hell about the lack of regard for their rights and they certainly are not worried about being taken for "weenies".
Don't believe my word on the matter, Einstein.
Access www.mensnewsdaily.com and read for yourself.
fourthwire:
And how would that be better than having some demanding hag around constantly, Einstein?
Ahem. We prefer the tag "crone" over "hag". But we'll settle for "old harpy" in a pinch. ;-)
Anonymous: There are no level playing fields. Only weenies whine about the playing field.
Playing fields are usually level at the outset of the game. It's what's in the players which makes the difference in the end -- unless some whiny players force "equal outcome", and then the game just isn't any fun any more.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nothing new here. Feminism can never let its guard down, lest men reassert their patriarchal tyranny. Anything that's good for men, must be a threat to women somehow.
I think that's in the NYTimes stylebook.
And who said anything about starting a pity party for white men? The good doctor frequently points out how feminist dogma and ideological overkill is harming society and serving a false mythos, but that's not treason to her sex.
We should be aiming for what is healthy, not affirmative action for the injustices of history.
>>>>>Playing fields are usually level at the outset of the game.<<<<
Indeed, when Australopithecus' ancestors came down from the trees, the playing fields WERE level. Everyone ran for cover when the predators came-a-calling!
>>>>It's what's in the players which makes the difference in the end --<<<<
That's assuming that there will be an END, of course.
Most humans live in the present.
The wiser ones learn from both past and present, to change their environments and make preparations for a better future.
>>>>>unless some whiny players force "equal outcome",<<<<<
Unless some "whiny players" object to unfavorable and unjust treatment, such as the misandry in the nation's courts, legislatures, homes, and workplaces, that unfavorable and unjust treatment will likely continue.
>>>>>>and then the game just isn't any fun any more.<<<<
I doubt that many of those men and boys who experienced their civil rights being trampled upon consider "the game" to be "fun".....
......and although those feminazi bitches whose endeavors to promote hatred of anyone born with a penis instead of a vagina might consider trampling on men's rights to be a "game" that is "fun", that's simply another symptom of their collective mental illness, to be treated as such.
My problem with feminists is that they think they can reverse gender roles (which have been in development for, oh, 10,000 years) by getting some laws passed by politicians they gave a lot of money to.
Put a naked man next to a naked woman and guess what you notice? They are COMPLIMENTARY. They are not COMPETITIVE and they are not meant to be. Feminists want women to compete with men, and not be complimentary to them.
The institution of marriage and the nuclear family were THE civilizing influences of the human race. Feminists hate these 2 things with a passion. The reason why is within the domain of Dr. Helen's profession, not mine. I suspect it is somewhere in the vicinity of father hate, father love, father abandonment, father abuse, etc.
I like men are from mars, women are from venus. Forget the academic credentials. It seems to make a lot of sense.
Men are direct and insensitive. Women are complicated and indirect. This takes academic research?
-Same anon as the anon above.
People! Manners please!
-----------------------
I've faced life threatening discrimination. I'm a mixed race male who looks white.
What I strongly object to is the idea that the harm done to me and my children is somehow good, right and proper; that it is somehow payback for things done by my forefathers. What the nasties seem to forget is that I too had foremothers AND that it is I, not the nasties, who has faced life threatening discrimination in the here and now.
I could go into a long rant on the paleolithic matriarchy and some people's demand that that tyrany must return. I could make all kinds of comparisons. I won't.
I will say that people who support tyrany, discrimination and contempt in the here and now are seriously wrong.
We will never arrive at a free and fair society while we allow any person to be tormented for the fun and profit of some other group.
AmericanWoman:
Seriously, the NYT's basically points out that women are manipulative bitches with no compassion for their husband's life who eagarly plan for the day that he drops like a fly so they collect a hefty sum, slurp margaritas in the sun and you call me anti-female?
American Women has the right to legally exterminate her off-spring yet She still complains about being oppressed at the 'bottom of the rung'. American women has attained the power of Medea's barbarism.
At 44 years of age I am the first generation of orthodox feminism and I am angry at the lies and deceptions orthodox feminism hoisted upon Womenhood these past three decades.
Gloria Steinam may have burned our bras but she left a legacy of sagging size DDD siliconed breast worn on anorexic bodies and botoxed-filled faces screaming about the plight of Eve Ensler's vagina while surrounding themselves around, defending and becoming the very male chauvinist pigs they so detested.
American feminisim is a joke.
As a liberated female I look to the those women in Africa for strength and courage who, instead of succumbing to weaknesses and helplessness of victimhood, do not exterminate their off-spring but will grow their own food to ensure their children survive. As a result of their strength African females are today the majority farmers.
American women live in prosperity yet we have been convinced that children will ruin our lives.
American women have been convinced that it takes an entire village to raise a single child but men are not necessary.
American women have been convinced that thirteen year old girls have the emotional stability to exterminate her off-spring without parental knowledge yet eighteen year old males are just children who are incapable of making their own decisions.
As a liberated female I cannot identify with feminism. Yes, I am angry at the Sisterhood.
Susan
It's interesting to me how much of these discussions are predicated upon class assumptions -- as if working-class men digging extra holes in their belts to stave off the hunger pangs are somehow oppressing the fat, middle-class women who think that walking to the water cooler qualifies as exercise.
Dr. Helen is right to approach writing like this with open mockery. Who takes this sort of drivel seriously, that anybody in the real world must take seriously?
"I for one, am not going to start any pity party for white men."
and:
"Can't stand the competition, white boy?"
So, Americanwoman is a racist and a sexist. How charming.
Much, if not all of the life expectancy gap is directly correlated to the widespread use of tobacco and the invention of the cigarette. Once women started smoking in greater numbers in the 60s and 70s, the gap slowly began to shrink. That combined with the reduction in overall smokers during the last couple decades is erasing the gap. So much for girl power, just dont smoke.
There are a species of women who believe that the elevation of women requires the degradation of men. But most women WANT a man in their lives, just as most men want a woman in their lives. The frustration within most relationships comes from a lack of understanding of the inherent differences between men and women, and an unwillingness to accept those differences.
I have a son and two daughters. I see this lack of understanding and frustration played out in their relationships with one another. But as a father, I stress to my son that he MUST learn to accept that the differences will always be there. More importantly, he must learn to appreciate and value the way women look at life and circumstances because it will help him be a better man.
I stress that same things with my daughters. It is not enough to acknowledge that men are different. They must learn to be grateful for those differences, and learn to value a man's perspective. Unfortunately, in our modern society, that message is much harder to convey to daughters than it is to sons. Our popular culture tells women they can have it all. But that is a lie. NO ONE gets to have it all their way, unless they intend to spend their lives alone. And who really wants that.
Scott Harris
fourtwire,
While you whine about the playing field, the rest of us will be prevailing on that field and tipping it in our favor. How's life from the sidelines, weenie?
>>>>>fourtwire,
While you whine about the playing field, the rest of us will be prevailing on that field and tipping it in our favor.<<<<
Anonymous, while you are knuckle-walking about, the rest of US will be prevailing on that field and tipping it in OUR favor.
>>>>>How's life from the sidelines, weenie?<<<<<
How's life hanging from your tail, dimwit?
Want another banana?...;-)
Yes, there are plenty of gold digging C***s in the world, but you silly men keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a big pair of boobs and big eyelashes. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve.
Not a boob man myself so I can't speak to that, but I kinda, sorta agree with you here. If a guy allows himself to be taken advantage of financially, I have no sympathy, like I have no sympathy for the woman who puts out after an expensive dinner and never gets called back.
However, as a never-married male in his early 30's, I have to say, that beyond attractiveness, I don't find that many women around my age or younger to have all that much to offer. Their personalities aren't that great (they seem to be influenced by a combination of feminism and an entitlement mentality; they want equality AND expensive engagement rings), they're unable or unwilling to do even modest amounts of household chores, and us men still seem to have to pick up the bills, even if the woman makes nearly as much as we do. If she makes more, she won't date us anyway.
So, for many guys, if it weren't for sexual desire and being physically attracted to women, we'd probably drop out of the dating pool entirely.
Not complaining really, just an observation. I'm in relationship currently, but I didn't mind being single and kind of miss it (Oh, the free time I used to have).
Although, what I didn't like was the assumption made, mostly by women, that if you were 30 and single you must be gay. As if not wanting to get involved in a situation where the odds aren't really in your favor makes you gay.
"By necessity, women have gotten used to a life lived for long periods without men. They have had the advantage in life expectancy since the late 19th century, when overall longevity started to climb."
I guess by this logic, you could say the original rise in women's life expectancies was also a bad thing. After all, before the late 19th century, women used to routinely die in childbirth, leaving many young widowers. These men were probably used to being alive for decades after the deaths of their wives. I'm sure that when their wives began to survive childbirth, and regularly live past menopause, it really put a cramp on their lifestyle.
So, in conclusion, I modestly propose that all humans be euthanized at age 40 to prevent the huge burden of having an old spouse.
Lollia
fourthwire,
The objective of the game is to tilt the field in one's favor. And weenies who whine about level fields haven't figured out the game yet. I have the field tipped my way. How are you doing?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
>>>>The objective of the game is to tilt the field in one's favor.<<<<
Perhaps in the space between your ears, that's "the objective".
Others want a more level field for men AND women.
>>>>And weenies who whine about level fields haven't figured out the game yet.<<<<<<
And morons (that would include critters like yourself for whom walking upright is an intellectual excercise)......
......... are not going to be allowed to dictate whether the field remains tipped or not.
>>>>>I have the field tipped my way.<<<<<
Only as long as your keeper continues to shove bananas into your cage, my tailed wonder...;-)
>>>>>How are you doing?<<<<<<
Just fine, Bonzo. Thank you for asking.
As the matter of fact, I am enjoying teasing you for your "scintillating intellect….;-)
fourthwire,
Now that you understand the game, let's see how you do. What took you so long, weenie?
>>>>>fourthwire,
Now that you understand the game, let's see how you do.<<<<<
I would certainly NOT care to rely on "geniuses" like yourself to determine which concepts I do or do not understand, my tailed wonder.......;-)
>>>>>What took you so long, weenie?<<<<
Ready for another banana there, genius?
Have the others picked through your fur for lice thoroughly?....;-)
Wow, this thread has really degenerated into the law of the jungle although fourthwire, you are quite a comedian. I nearly busted a gut with your quip about the bananas and "my tailed wonder."
I'll make one comment about the marriage strike (which came up in connection with the NYT piece), before high-tailing it:
The marriage strike is effortless for men to implement, as men are still expected to take the initiative in relationships. All that a man has to do is not take the initiative, and the marriage strike continues.
Just putting "Anonymous" into a proper perspective......
...... whether she appreciates the effort or not.;-)
I certainly appreciate your sense of humor as well, Dr. Helen, not to mention your compassion and intelligence.
I also appreciate those individuals who do not stoop to the level of their adversaries, but I also believe that the "useful idiots" on these boards deserve a taste of their own medicine.
Keep up the good work, Dr. Helen.
You are one of those American women that I admire and respect.......
.... and I am positive that I am not the only individual who thinks so.
cheers
fourthwire,
I agree you have not relied on geniuses like me to determine which concepts you do or do not understand. That's why you are whining for a level playing field, while others reap the rewards. Figured out how to tilt it yet?
>>>>>I agree you have not relied on geniuses like me to determine which concepts you do or do not understand.<<<<<
Of course not, Bonzo.
As a "useful idiot" your role amounts to providing entertainment, not your "genius".
>>>>>That's why you are whining for a level playing field, while others reap the rewards. <<<<<
LOL..... and while you are staring at your paws in that puzzled, cross-eyed fashion that signifies the considerable intellectual difficulties involved, others are laughing at you.
>>>>>Figured out how to tilt it yet?<<<<
Figured out how to stand erect without resting on either your knuckles or tail yet, my simian superstar?.....;-)
>> You just read an original article, a follow-up article, and about 50 posts illuminating in various detail how men are being discriminated against.
>>
Please show where I have said that men are not being discrimated against, although it seems more likely they are being harmed by reverse discrimination for women.
>> And I find that suggestion of horror that lowly negroes were allowed to vote before women to be deliciously revealing.
ER, that is the point, I was told upthread that women can't complain because the discrimination against them was nothing compare to that of blacks. If that is so, then why didn't women have the right to vote?
>> Seriously, the NYT's basically points out that women are manipulative bitches with no compassion for their husband's life who eagarly plan for the day that he drops like a fly so they collect a hefty sum, slurp margaritas in the sun and you call me anti-female?
>>>
I'm no fan of the NYTimes myself, and find most of these Dowdish article crap.
But I don't think we need to attack one sex, or one race, or one group in order to elevate another.
I do think most of the perceived 'anti-white-male' attitude is just that, perceived. I'm at a situation at work where the office is 70% black female. We've been told that in choosing new people we need to be more diverse. I think it's a hoot, personally.
Meanwhile the overall make up of our senior management is - you guess it - white males.
So excuse me for not sending out those pity party invites just yet.
I used to respond to put-down artists until a wise man (my father) pointed out that the singular contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put down.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
>>>>I used to respond to put-down artists until a wise man (my father) pointed out that the singular contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put down.<<<<
You probably ought to reconsider casting stones yourself if you don't like the return casts shattering into gravel when those impact against that furry noggin...;-)
If your father was a "wise man", then apparently the laws of genetics need urgent revision, my hairy Rhodes Scholar!...;-)
>>>>I do think most of the perceived 'anti-white-male' attitude is just that, perceived.<<<<
I believe that the perceived "anti-white-male" attitude is far less relevant than the anti-male attitude affecting our nation's workplaces, public schools and universities, homes, courts, and legislatures.
>>>>I'm at a situation at work where the office is 70% black female. We've been told that in choosing new people we need to be more diverse. I think it's a hoot, personally.<<<<
I agree.
>>>>>Meanwhile the overall make up of our senior management is - you guess it - white males.<<<<
And if the most qualified personnel to comprise your senior management ARE "white males", then there is no reason to have it otherwise.
Neither skin color nor which sexual organ is between a person's legs should provide reason for hiring or promotion, in my opinion.
fourthwire,
Feel free to laugh at me. I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
If your father was a "wise man", then apparently the laws of genetics need urgent revision, my hairy Rhodes Scholar!...;-)
You have me confused with the anonymous simian; I'm the anonymous mutant. By your fatuous example, the singular contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put down.
>>>>>fourthwire,
Feel free to laugh at me.<<<<<
No need to provide permission, my fuzzy intellectual. I tend to tease morons whether they appreciate it or not.
>>>>I'm laughing all the way to the bank.<<<<
Well good for you, Bonzo. Extra banana ration for you!
>>>>>ou have me confused with the anonymous simian; I'm the anonymous mutant.<<<<<
Not particularly valuable information, but thanks for trying.....
>>>>>By your fatuous example, the singular contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put down.<<<<
By your rather lame example, the singular contribution of anonymous to the board vacillates between providing laughs and yawns.
"Not particularly valuable information, but thanks for trying....."
It would have been valuable if you had more than one neuron--distinguishing among the different anonymous posters would become possible. You're welcome, in any case.
Anonymous,
Teasing is good for some folks. If it benefits you, I recommend you continue. And while you are teasing and whining about level playing fields, I will be taking a lion's share from the playing field tilted in my favor. Ain't this a great country?
>>>>It would have been valuable if you had more than one neuron--distinguishing among the different anonymous posters would become possible. You're welcome, in any case.<<<<
Focus, Einstein....... Raise yourself up off those knuckles and scratch your furry little skull if doing so might awaken any long-dead neurons between your ears.
Just how do you propose to "distinguish" among the different ANONYMOUS posters, particularly among fairly stupid examples like yourself?.....;-)
Do you even understand the nature of an "anonymous" login, Bonzo?
No banana ration for you!
>>>>Teasing is good for some folks.<<<<
Certainly for those folks with a sense of humor, it is.
>>>>If it benefits you, I recommend you continue.<<<<
I don't particularly care what your "recommendations" are, my intellectual powerhouse.
You fill the role of a "useful idiot" and enterainer, not advisor.
>>>>>And while you are teasing and whining about level playing fields, I will be taking a lion's share from the playing field tilted in my favor.<<<<<<
LOL.....Learn how to stand erect without balancing with your tail, genius........
...... and stay out of the lion's cages or the "playing field" will become his or her feeding field.
>>>>Ain't this a great country?<<<<
Indeed it is, my fuzzy intellectual.
fourthwire,
Feel free to disregard my recommendations. The more the weenies whine, the more I tilt that playing field in my favor. That leaves more for me. Ain't this a great country?
It's like the old Henny Youngman joke:
"Why do Jewish men die before their wives? Because they want to."
>>>>>ourthwire,
Feel free to disregard my recommendations.<<<<
Do you believe that I feel any inclination to take you seriously at all, my tailed wonder?....;-)
>>>>>The more the weenies whine, the more I tilt that playing field in my favor.<<<<<
The more tricks you perform, the more tidbits the tourists toss to you, as well.
>>>>>That leaves more for me.<<<<<
Be careful or you might end up with a sore tummy, particularly if it's not ripe.
>>>>Ain't this a great country?<<<<
Indeed it is, my academic giant.
All the lady-hate is just nutty. I too, seomtimes wonder about the apparent underlying self loathing of Helen for her sex. I kind of wonder what it is she's driving at. Women should die faster?
I hope my husband outlives me. I love him and think he's irreplaceable. And I don't think he has a bad deal at all, either.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
>>>>I too, seomtimes wonder about the apparent underlying self loathing of Helen for her sex.<<<<
"apparent underlying self loathing of Helen for her sex"?
Apparent to whom? Simply because she understands the misandry happening in American society?
>>>>>I kind of wonder what it is she's driving at.<<<<<
Reading her words would certainly help in that endeavor.
>>>>>Women should die faster?<<<<
No, more likely that "women should not celebrate their husbands'" deaths.
4thwire, try to control yourself. You should give up hallucinogenic suppositories.
>>>>4thwire, try to control yourself.<<<<
LOL.... try to walk upright without using your knuckles or tail.
>>>>You should give up hallucinogenic suppositories.<<<<
And you shouldn't continue with those headfirst dives onto the floor of your cage, Bonzo.
Gender Trench War. I used to try to be a conscientious objector, but got conscripted anyway. Since this is one war where deserters don't get shot if caught, I deserted.
Little Lion has made the best comment of the lot - the marriage strike requires absolutely no effort. All a man has to do is nothing, and it continues. The more men who do nothing, the faster it grows.
The multiple Anonymii are welcome to the playing field, however tilted it may be. I've gone fishing. They all ought to think I'm great because I won't be hanging around to cramp any old woman's lifestyle.
fourthwire,
I don't know what you believe, but I do know you whine a good bit about the situation from which I am prospering. Ain't this a great country?
>>>>>don't know what you believe, but I do know you whine a good bit about the situation from which I am prospering.<<<<<
If you were just a bit brighter than a block of limestone and could read, then you might have an outside chance of knowing what I believe.
That "situation" that you claim to "prosper" in......would that happen to involve an extra banana ration, by any chance?...;-)
>>>>Ain't this a great country?<<<<
Positively so, Bonzo.
fourthwire,
Perhaps I could determine what you believe. But the whining is far more obvious. Keep it up. The more you whine about that playing field, the more it tips in my favor. The more the field tips in my favor, the more I prosper. Ain't this a great country?
The closeness of two married people is a heart issue, not one of needs and wants. It is a spiritual thing, non-tangible. To reduce the nature of this to who gets what and who wants to be left alone---or who's glad to be left alone....speaks of a sad state that some find themselves.
g
>>>>>fourthwire, Perhaps I could determine what you believe.<<<<<
Perhaps you are Eleanor Roosevelt, come back from the dead, too.;-)
>>>>>But the whining is far more obvious.<<<<
Just as the simian is far more oblivious.....
>>>>>Keep it up.<<<
As long as you seem to need it, or until I tire of mocking you........
>>>>The more you whine about that playing field, the more it tips in my favor.<<<<<
Which moron told you THAT bit of nonsense and why are you stupid enough to believe her?
The only thing that you could manage to "tip" would be some bit of artificial habitat that your keeper left in your cage to play with.
>>>>>The more the field tips in my favor, the more I prosper.<<<<
Until your little simian belly is full and no more bananas can possibly entice you to perform, no doubt......;-)
>>>>>Ain't this a great country?<<<<
More than you could possibly understand, my knuckle-walking expert.
AmericanWoman,
"Yes, there are plenty of gold digging C***s in the world, but you silly men keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a big pair of boobs and big eyelashes. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve."
Yes, there are plenty of Wife-Beating A**holes in the world, but you silly women keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a bad boy image and a redemption fantasy. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve.
Cheerfully yours,
Patrick
Anonymous and fourthwire -- GET A ROOM!!!!!!
A CHAT ROOM!!!!
PLEASE!!
Your conversation simply isnt THAT interesting.
GO AWAY!
I'm in my 50s and find myself single and dating. I agree with the recent comment about women not having much to offer. I've been surprised at how shallow and self centered most of them are, and this is a group of mature individuals. Their idea of gender roles is stuck in 1960. The man pays for everything, comes up with all the suggestions, and the sweet little thing does nothing, contributes nothing.
Oh, and they all say "where are all the good men?"
This is part of their plan to become elected to the National Academy of Science. They should be encouraged!
"where are all the good men?"
Out fishing so we don't put a cramp in all these single older women's exciting social lives.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Not all American women are shallow and self-centered, certainly.......
...... but a fair percentage of them are.
Far too many women are as you describe them of course.
Since most men have at least a basic level of economic literacy, they increasingly understand that the risks associated with marrying self-centered, egocentric, materialistic women far outweigh the benefits, both real and imagined.
Then there are the "bait-and-switch" queens whose behavioral changes AFTER marriage can only be understood through understanding the relatively lower risks and higher scope and scale of benefits women typically are provided through marriage, than men to consider.
Date them to your heart's content......
..... but wear a condom........
..... and don't marry them.
fourthwire,
Feel free to mock me for beating you. Love that prosperity! Ain't this a great country?
>>>>Feel free to mock me for beating you<<<<
Feel free to go back to attempting those headfirst dives to the bottom of your cage, monkey.
>>>>Love that prosperity! Ain't this a great country?<<<<
Isn't THAT fascinating?!?!..... you "love prosperity"..... and believe that "America is a "great country".
Whoda thunk that?
Have you considered notifying anyone in the media?.....;-)
This thread demonstrates why intelligent corporations never use e-mail or desktop videoconferencing
to build a project team unless the participants have held at least one face-to-face meeting.
Text-on-a-screen-identities are inherently abstract and often become aggressive, and the descent into "projection" happens pretty quickly, especially among the Type A's of both/all genders.
The cyber-sociology of the rumble is almost as interesting as the content of commentary!
Anonymous/Susan (isn't that an oxymoron?)wrote -- "Gloria Steinam may have burned our bras but she left a legacy of sagging size DDD siliconed breast worn on anorexic bodies and botoxed-filled faces screaming about the plight of Eve Ensler's vagina while surrounding themselves around, defending and becoming the very male chauvinist pigs they so detested."
Everyone who has enjoyed this rumble-thread should also read Ariel Levy's new book "Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture."
(Quote) -- "Without a doubt there are some women who feel they're most sexual with their vaginas waxed, their labia trimmed, their breasts enlarged, and their garments flossy and scanty. I am happy for them. I wish them many blissful and lubricious loops around the pole. But there are many other women (and, yes, MEN) who feel constrained in this environment, who would be happier and feel hotter -- more empowered, more sexually liberated, and all the rest of it -- if they explored other avenues of expression and entertainment."
I would humbly propose that lurking not very deeply beneath the excellent turbulence of this entire thread lies the tragedy of desires unfulfilled.
For both ... err ... all genders.
( Let's invite the trannies to post here OK --- very valuable perspective for a gender-conflicted crowd!)
- anonymous 143-3/bDIS
So much anger, so little time.
Helen:
I'm not the same anonymous from any of the above but rather from the Men's News Daily post.
That you chose to essentially complement fourthwire (that's certainly how he took it, I think) speaks VOLUMES about you. And it ain't good.
It's one thing to be rude. But this man generally does not even engage in the discourse but simply hurls epithets like the simian he accuses everyone else of being. Disagree with him on anything and he immediately refers to you as a moron, idiot or worse. Frankly, he appears to be off his meds.
And you think he's funny? Well, hey, it's your site. But, as several others have commented here recently, know that your colors are showing.
There is really no reason to subject us tp the confusion of multiple anonymi when nicknonymity is trivially simple. Just pick any random word other than my chosen name grain and use it as a consistant identity.
By the way, there are some sports for which deliberately non-level playing fields are specially constructed.
>>>>>I'm not the same anonymous from any of the above but rather from the Men's News Daily post.<<<<<
Actually, I rather doubt that you are from the "Men's News Daily post" since anyone familiar with the site knows that it's mensnewsdaily.com.
Within the first sentence of your post, you have already managed to cast doubt on your own honesty, anonymous-who-claims-to-be-from-"Mens News Daily post".
>>>>It's one thing to be rude. But this man generally does not even engage in the discourse but simply hurls epithets like the simian he accuses everyone else of being.<<<<<
LOL.... "This man" generally DOES bother to engage in the discourse with intelligent individuals, particularly those who give some indication that at least they are not hopeless man-haters,
"This man" generally DOES treat idiots as....... (drumroll please)..... idiots....
........and the more obvious misandrists as (repeat drumroll)...... idiots without any significant regard to their feelings.
No doubt you would prefer a nice politically-correct discourse, especially if it followed YOUR own agenda and beliefs....;-)
It's one thing to be rude all right, but if you ACTUALLY read all of my posts, you would be forced to admit that I am rude to those sorry individuals who positively seethe with misandry, and who frankly aren't the brightest bulbs.
Individuals who post intelligently are treated as such.... a point that you either are too lazy to acknowledge or too dishonest to admit.
In either case, that's your problem.... and whether I post as "fourthwire" or under another ID, I will continue to show disrespect in my posts for your misandrist pals.
You obviously have not read all of my posts, or else you are engaging in a rather transparent attempt at deception, and in either case, deserve a bit of derision yourself.
I certainly was having a bit of fun mocking your namesake for her abject stupidity and misandry..... particularly after she made it clear that she was both misandrist AS WELL AS racist.
Perhaps you treat such individuals with respect. I do not. Never have and never will.
And unlike your claims, I am careful to NOT refer to anyone with a lukewarm intelligence or better as a "moron, idiot, or worse" unless they are obviously ethically-challenged....
.... whether you care to notice and admit it or not.
>>>>>Frankly, he appears to be off his meds.<<<<<
LOL.... you apparently cannot be bothered to hold yourself to those very standards for behavior that you would have me held to, hypocrite?
Frankly, you appear to be dishonest, if not "off your meds" yourself.
>>>>>But, as several others have commented here recently, know that your colors are showing.<<<<<
And as several others have demonstrated recently, perhaps you ALSO believe that Dr. Helen's pro-male perspective is by default "anti-female"?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here's a repeat of my very first post, anonymous-who-does-not-even-write-the-correct -name-of-mensnewsdaily.com-although-you-claim-to be-from-that-site:
You will notice that I am engaging with a vocabulary appropriate to the individual I am addressing, in that particular case "AmericanWoman".
You might also notice if you are truly perceptive and reasonably honest, that some individuals post on this board relatively politely whle using their Blogger display name, turning to "anonymous" blog posting when they choose to hurl THEIR vitriol.
As a matter of fact, I do not.
Here's the post, one of those which give lie to your assertion that I "generally do(es) not even engage in the discourse but simply hurls epithets like the simian he accuses everyone else of being."
By the way, in your eagerness to try to enlist Dr. Helen to your cause, you seem to have overlooked the fact that I referred specifically to only ONE INDIVIDUAL as "simian", not "everyone" as you claim.
Or did you "fail to notice" that point, as well, anonymous-who-claims-to-be-from-"Mens-News-Daily-Post"?
>>>>>Americanwoman wrote: "I like your outspokeness, Dr. Helen. But sometimes I have to ask, what do you have against women? Why the anger and the resentment?"
Americanwoman is displaying one of those reasons why I consider American "feminism" to be a mental illness, specifically the zero-sum perspective that any support of or appreciation for men and men's issues MUST adversely affect women or women's interests.
>>>>>Sure, there are plenty of things in this life that are unfair<<<<<
In this sentence, Americanwoman actually acknowleges that the status quo in America is unfair to men........
>>>>>but surely you are not going to deny that women have been on the bottom rung for the most part until recently.<<<<
..... while simultaneously trying to justify present injustices toward men in terms of actual or imagined past injustices toward women.
Actually, women have not been "on the bottom rung" at all, contrary to feminist ideology / "Womyn's Studies" where Americanwoman was perhaps taught that her ancestors suffered oppression by men.
The fact that men have historically DIED to protect and provide for women has been presumably conveniently "forgotten".
Women were certainly "on the bottom rung" when the Titanic hit an iceberg all right...........
........ on the bottom rung of the ladders leading down to the lifeboats!
Americanwoman is likely one more good example why American men ought to hold off marrying American women.
Until America's women loudly and firmly denounce such bitchy misandry, not to mention the brain-damaged aspirations to perpetual victimhood, they simply ought to be avoided when possible (except for recreational sex).
Even then, wear a condom!<<<<
anonymous 143-3/bDIS 8:22 PM :
Well said and interesting. I've always had a concern about the bad manners shown in net postings ... flame wars have been around since the days of 360 baud modems and they are as useless today as they were then. I do not read postings which are part of a flame war: I quickly scan and decide to read or go to the next posting.
Manners PEOPLE! Manners! Disagree, but do it as politely as possible.
BTW: I have laways had trouble understanding the point of view of some people ... the point of view that if a person stands up for decent treatment of males, the person is against females. That point of view does not make sense to me, it seems to have a core error in it, a core distortion of fact and logic.
THERE! Try doing it like that.
Anonymous Said: The objective of the game is to tilt the field in one's favor.
Chris Key Says: The malevolent and juvenile nature of your mentality is an example of why men are beginning to develop a feeling of indifference to women. The chivalrous nature of men has caused them to dedicate their lives to meeting the demands of women since the middle ages, and in return an assemblage of modern-day savage feminazi's have decided to exploit the kindness and extract as much as they can from it.
The problem with such a mentality, is it will lead to the future generations of men feeling an indifference to women that will cause the (i) empowerment of men and the (ii) disempowerment of women, as women are unable to support themselves and are dependent on the intellectual and physiological superiority of man.
The majority of the inventions that women use were invented by men, as were the majority of the products that women are dependent upon in order to lead a luxurious lifestyle, and if women continue to treat men like second-class citizens, then do not expect men to dedicate their lives to making women's lives *easier*.
Malevolent women are a disgrace to the female sex, as they're immoral behaviour is only going to lead to the alienation between the sexes, and that will make life far more difficult for the future generations of females who NEVER committed a single sin.
When a person looks at the malevolent behaviour of the feminazi's, it is easy to understand why the older civilisations such as the Muslims are unwilling to offer women a great deal of rights, as they probably learned long ago that when you offer women a vast amount of privilege and legal impunity, then SOME of them will ruin it for the majority.
The feminazi's would demand that the Western men who they hate to the core make it their goal to *defend* their nations if the Muslim savages were to invade the West, and failure to do so would lead to manipulative trollops trying to *shame* the men into joining the military; they would use horrible terms such as *weenies*, *pussies*, *faggots*, *pansies* and *men without balls* during their ostracism of the men who refuse to defend the feminazi fiends who have subjugated men.
Anonymous Said: And weenies who whine about level fields haven't figured out the game yet. I have the field tipped my way. How are you doing?
Chris Key Says: Chris Key figured out the nature of today's society while he was still an adolescent, and he has empowered himself by understanding the manpulative tactics that derogatory trollops use in order to *control* men.
If the derogatory trollops try to *shame* me into conforming to their bigoted ideologies, then I do not care, as I am not intimidated by the feminazi fiends; I lead the lifestyle that allows me to retain my dignity.
The ability to become a millionaire does not offer any interest to me, as I realise that all the money in the world cannot equate to happiness; it only leads to stress, greed and decadence.
While the juvenile brutes like to refer to socialising and financial wealth as a *game*, I am able to realise that the *key* to life is to be empathetic, sympathetic, morally correct and content with being a decent person, as adulthood is founded on the ability to be mature and rise above the desire to view life as a game where everyone else is just an object to exploit.
A Human who views life as a *game* is an immoral brute that deserves to be shunned and ostracised from all communities that they are a member of, as such a person is a parasitic scavenger who preys on the kindness of the innocent.
If women believe that life is a *game*, in which the objective is to *tilt the world in one's favour*, then the decadence of soicety will only increase, as a civilisation cannot advance when the sexes are unable to work together.
Anonymous Said: And weenies who whine about level fields haven't figured out the game yet. I have the field tipped my way. How are you doing?
Chris Key Says: The illogical nature of your comment can be identified by the incessant manner in which your ilk complain about the men who refuse to *work*. Women like you are admitting that you have altered the system so that women benefit at the expense of men, however your ilk then try to shame and ostracise any man who refuses to enter a field that has deprived him of his rights.
Altering the system is easy for women to do, however it's hard to obtain the compliance of men when they are aware that me are treated like second-class citizens.
The second-wave feminists were successful in intimidating men into meeting their demands, however it's going to much more difficult for the current generation of women to do the same.
The women of today think that they can obtain anything they want by acting in a spoilt and neurotic manner, and by portraying themselves as *perpetual victims*, however men are beginning to feel an indifference to such women, which is why the current generation of men are less willing to work long hours just to support the demands of the *women*.
Chris Key:
Well put. You have just described the tragedy of identity politics.
I must say, and intend to continue saying this, for context, that I have known many women who have suffered discrimination at the hands of both women & men for being forthright, candid, honorable & principled.
They often blame men as a species when it is particular men (or women) who should be the focus of their ire.
These women, I would love to have as friends and allies.
This reminds me of something my grandpa (always a comedian) once said. My grandma is wonderful, and he loved her very much, but asked once if he had any thoughts on why men often die first he said, "Because they want to."
fourthwire,
I do love the prosperity that comes from the playing field tipped in my favor. I also love the advantages in schools, universities, scholarships, employment, promotion, and loans. And the advantages in court are wonderful.
Your whining keeps people from taking your issue seriously because nobody pays attention to a weenie. Thank you. I really do appreciate the sacrifices you have made for my prosperity. Ain't this a great country?
The closeness of two married people is a heart issue, not one of needs and wants. It is a spiritual thing, non-tangible. To reduce the nature of this to who gets what and who wants to be left alone---or who's glad to be left alone....speaks of a sad state that some find themselves.
I agree and disagree. First, all human relationships are about needs and wants. If we didn't have a need or desire for companionship, love, sex, etc. we'd all become hermits.
However, I do agree that a good, "spiritual" as you call it, relationship between two people shouldn't, or more appropriately, won't be reduced to excessive score keeping about who gets or does what. The problem is, most couples don't reach this level of spirituality on the first date. So at that point, the issue of who brings what to the table is very much at play.
Chsis,
Perhaps I am malevolent and juvenile. If that is the tactic that tilts the playing field in my favor, then it's a pretty good system.
I agree most of the inventions and scientific advances have been made by men. That's simple history. I applaud them and enjoy what they accomplished. So what? They were also made by white folks. So what?
There are two parallel games in progress. One is tilting the playing field in one's favor. The other is playing on that tilted field. The smart folks have always tilted the filed before playing on it.
There have never been any rules when it comes to tilting the field. Good luck with your chivalry. How's it working for you?
fourthwire,
Thanks for repeating your initial post. It's a classic loser's whine. Keep up the good work. Ain't this a great country?
The anonymous poster above reads suspiciously like the Strawfeminist.
yet another anonymous said
Perhaps I am malevolent and juvenile. If that is the tactic that tilts the playing field in my favor, then it's a pretty good system.
Malevolent, juvenile, self-centered, self-serving, vicious, vindictive, and a user.
Thanks, Anon, for showing us the true face of western womanhood today. The rare exceptions like Dr. Helen, and those handfull of supposed "equity feminists" who get praised way out of proportion to what they actually contribute, will not be enough to keep the majority of men fooled forever. Men are wising up to what women are really like, and the fact that all these appeals to men's sense of fairness for the past 40 years have been nothing but an elaborate hoax to tilt the playing field to women's advantage. As Lincoln said, you can fool all of the men some of the time, and some of the men all of the time, but you can't fool all of the men all of the time.
"What a strange game... the only winning move is not to play."
- Wopper
You can stand the playing field completely on its side for all I care. I caught on to your game almost 40 years ago. I knew this hoax was never about "ee-kwal-i-tee" and "fairness", but rather about tilting the playing field completely to your advantage.
The problem for you is that now you and others of your ilk are stuck on it, playing with yourselves. More and more of the other side have simply quit the field and are refusing to be hoodwinked into coming back no matter how many names you call them. The marriage boycott is now being supported by a quarter of all single men. As Anon6:26 said, more and more men are finding out that women simply have nothing to offer, particularly older women.
Enjoy your proposperity, perks, and legal advantages. A man still has to come close to you in order for you to get your hooks into him, and the young and foolish get fished out of the pond early, leaving only the cagey and elusive.
It really doesn't matter how tilted the playing field is to your side, if you are the only ones on it.
Zed,
OK. Perhaps I am malevolent, juvenile, self-centered, self-serving, vicious, vindictive, and a user. What's your point? The playing field is still tipped in my favor, I still prosper from it, and all we hear from the whiners is talk, talk, talk.
Ever wonder how the millions of men who are successful do it? It sure isn't by whining. Maybe you should ask them, if they will even bother with a whiner.
Keep on whining. I'll keep on tilting the field in my favor.
Anon said, again...
Keep on whining. I'll keep on tilting the field in my favor.
Keep tilting, I quit the game long ago. You won't win what I have. I don't have to ask successful men how they did it, I learned that back in the 60s and have been following that path ever since. In my mid-40s, I took 6 years off the career grind to travel the world, ride my motorcycle, and fish. I work about a 37 hour week, come and go as I please, I'm on track to retire early and comfortably, and I have complete peace and quiet in my own home. All my married friends envy me and use my place as a refuge where they can run away from the nagging.
I'm not whining, I'm gloating.
Chris Key:
Oh, so CHIVALRY was the reason that men kept women with no voting rights, no property rights, no equal rights to work or school, etc.
I'm glad you cleared that up. I realize now how ungrateful I've been.
Wait.
You said men are intellectually superior to women? And you accuse women of being malevolent?
Also, you said the innocent women of the present and future will pay for the sins of their "feminazi" sisters? Wait. Weren't you one of those making the argument that it was immoral and illogical for feminists to argue for special treatment now based on historical abuses?
Zed,
Well done. As I said, there are millions of successful men around. Maybe you can tell some of these weenies how it's done. So what are you whining about? Is that how you succeeded?
anon said
Maybe you can tell some of these weenies how it's done.
Mostly the same thing they are saying, which you keep calling "whining."
It's simple - don't get married. Most of the well-off men I know didn't. Most of the married ones are just squeaking by.
"Perhaps I am malevolent, juvenile, self-centered, self-serving, vicious, vindictive, and a user. What's your point? The playing field is still tipped in my favor, I still prosper from it, and all we hear from the whiners is talk, talk, talk."
Actually, "talk" from "whiners" is not all there is. Men are suing women for sexual harassment, battery, and discrimination in increasing numbers, and are winning those cases as well. Men are fighting back in family court in increasing numbers. Those are the actions you can see. What you can't see, but which plainly exists, are the men who refuse to hire "women's studies" majors, men who refuse to associate with self-declared feminists, men who donate to charitable organizations for fathers. Then there are men who refuse to come to the rescue of a girl they see attacked in an alley, men who refuse to stand up to a girl peer of theirs being bullied in school. Most widespread are men who, believing that to get the most out of life they need to be manipulative, self-centered, self-serving, vindictive, and a user, as Anonymous claims to be, these men turn into the very thing that feminists hate: mysognists. You can see the widespread evidence of this attitude in rap music, for example. Men of that sort routinely don't give a damn about women, because they have learned that women don't give a damn about them. Is that the sort of world that feminism was supposed to create?
What a sad, disgusting thing, if so. All this evil does is breed more evil. Anonymous seems to believe that the so-called "playing field" (as if life is just a game) will be forever "tilted" in her favor. But reality has a way of showing how false that perspective really is. There is no "playing field." We're all just people. And being vindictive, manipulative, and wicked to every man you meet doesn't say much about men, but it does say a lot about you. Enjoy your wealth, however you get it. It will never buy you happiness, which you certainly lack, as anyone who professes to be so wedded to materialism and vindictiveness surely is.
level playing fields
I always preferred the field be level or tilted in the other direction. That way when I when I win or accomplish something, it's something I did not just a result of a tilted field. When I was younger and still a good basketball player I often would give the other team an advantage. It just made my victory better.
One of the feminist heroic events was when Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in a tennis match. It doesn't seem to matter that she hit into a double court while he hit into the singles or that he was allowed only one serve. King was in her prime and one of the top female players in the world. Riggs was 55 years old, 25 years past his prime and not even the best seniors player.
Of course, enjoying your own accomplishments or accomplishing anything means little if you measure life by your material possessions.
Just wondering, Sydney, what kind of job do you apply for with a women's study degree anyway? Seems it would be limited to certain social services and academia. And, what man would want to associate with a feminist of such as anonymous above? Only a masochist.
"Sydney, what kind of job do you apply for with a women's study degree anyway?"
Lord knows. I consider them un-employable. Even people with a high school education have more sense than them.
Sydney,
I intend to enjoy the prosperity I gain from the tilted playing field while I wait to see any results from your whining.
Don't tell the weenies here there is no playing field. The tilt to the field is their excuse for personal failure.
I'm always amused when I hear or read a bunch of women's studies majors complaining about how there are not enough female CEO's of fortune 500 companies, or not enough females in the hard sciences, or whatever.
Here's a hint: If you want more women in these fields don't major in, or encourage other women to major in, women's studies.
dadvocate,
If material posesssions mean so little, why are you whining about them?
Some how this story fits into this discussion. If, for no other reason, a humorous break.
"Don't tell the weenies here there is no playing field."
But there isn't. There are only people. And you, with your possessions, in your loneliness.
Sydney,
Does that mean the whiners are wrong when they say the playing field isn't level? If so, what are they whining about?
Can you tell us more about my loneliness? I haven't said anything about loneliness. Perhaps you can tell us about it?
"I haven't said anything about loneliness. Perhaps you can tell us about it?"
Here's a hint: manipulative, self-centered, self-serving, vindictive people usually don't have any friends.
Perhaps with all that money you're getting from your beloved "playing field," you can buy yourself a clue.
Sydney,
Come on, Sydney. You can do better than that. Just make the case that I am lonely because some of the whiners here made accusations.
That beloved playing field that is tilted in my favor is a gold mine. I shouldn't have to buy myself a clue. You made the statement. Can't you stand up like a man and defend it? Try it. Maybe you'll like it and give up whining.
So, are the whiners wrong when they complain about the tilted playing field? If so, we see a lot of whining about nothing here.
Who agrees with Sydney that there is no playing field?
I've seen many playing fields, none of them tilted though.
Although, some do have mounds in the middle. Does that count?
rizzo,
Is that a vote for the idea the playing field is level for all?
Chris,
You said,
"A Human who views life as a *game* is an immoral brute that deserves to be shunned and ostracised from all communities that they are a member of, as such a person is a parasitic scavenger who preys on the kindness of the innocent."
Does this include the whiners who complain the playing field is not level?
Life is not fair, and I don't expect it to be. But I DO expect the law to be fair: the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution says it shall be. Unfortunately, far too many legislators and judges have forgotten that clause and need a reminder.
so anonymous with the tilted field, you get it all, money, power, responsibility then, as the state altered the field to benefit you, what about the other people it didnt benefit, but then again you are self absorbed, and only looking out for your own selfish desires.
you moan about its all talk talk talk. but thats what men do. we talk, we create meme's we pass on knowledge due to our talking. we dont waste it on frivolous does my bum look big in this. and this site is all about talking or discussing as it should be.
to denigrate all people (men) who dont accept that women are the all high worshipped goddesses, by calling them whiners and weenies, and so on, you are just creating more opposition to you and your point(less) of view..
try to imagine if you can or are able too, that its a man saying the same things you are saying, that women shouldnt whine if the field isnt tilted into their favour. imagine, it that women are called whiners and weenies, or slackers, for even complaining that the system is wrong. if you feel disgust then you are a sexist, you are a misandrist.
Mercurior,
I do benefit enormously from the tilted playing field.
I also observe there has been no time in human history when the field was not tilted one way or another. Why should we think it will suddenly become level now? Can anyone tell us a time when the playing field was not tilted in favor of of some group? (This is directed towards those who think there is a playing field.)
This is why I say one game involves tilting the field, while another involves playing on it and reaping the rewards of the tilt.
A whiner is not someone who refuses to worship women; it's someone who whines about his situation. You can see many of them on this site. There are millions of successful men who are not whimers. I don't know if they worship women. It doesn't matter.
Feminists have repeatedly challenged men to redefine masculinity. According to feminist rhetoric, men are thirty years behind women in this regard. In lieu of changing, we're busy blaming and whining, they contend. Rising to the feminist challenge, I propose at least two responses.
I suggest that any man who rightfully points out institutionalized anti-male bias, and who is accused on that account of blaming and whining, might consider informing his accusers that, while such behavior may seem inappropriate and unbecoming for a pre-feminist man, it achieves the level of heroism in the liberated post-feminist man, who has followed the feminist exhortation to redefine masculinity itself--along feminist lines. Whining and victim status are among the first characteristics to be adopted into the transformed masculine persona; accordingly, far from being shameful, they must now be considered heroic. The structuralists, who believe that language is reality, will be forced to agree.
However, if it suits you not to whine, because it means falling into a feminist trap, as some men's rights activists have cautioned, citing the relative vulnerability of men to this charge, then avoid any semblance of whining at all costs.
But for those who wish to dignify the feminist call for a redefinition of masculinity, I suggest the whining, victimized man as the apotheosis of radicalized, feminist masculinity. For the liberated post-feminist man, victimhood not only takes on the pre-feminist stoic masculine attribute of heroism, but serves as the vehicle of rapprochement between feminists and men's rights activists.
it's someone who whines about his situation.
So you're saying the entire feminist movement is the result of a bunch of whiners?
dadvocate,
Of course. Look at history.
dadvocate said...
So you're saying the entire feminist movement is the result of a bunch of whiners?
and liars.
In true P.T. Barnum tradition, the suckers have not been given an even break, nor a "level playing field", and never will be. From day one, feminism has been an elaborate hoax and scam perpetrated for the purpose of giving women even greater advantage than they already had.
The only question that remains is whether the suckers are ever going to wake up, realize that they have been played for suckers, and stop going along with it. Based on what I have seen going on for the past 40 years, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Just a question? Did any of you geniuses speak up when pro-white-male bias was rampant, or was that Ok with you?
You seem to have a lot to say about pro-female bias, but not a lot about why it came about in the first place.
During my lifetime, approx 50 years, there's always been a pro-female bias of some sort. Women were never expected to perform the more dangerous, difficult jobs. Men opened doors for women. Women (and children) were always saved first in life threatening situations. Women were always given more consideration and protection. It was even socially acceptable for the female in a married relationship to do nothing to earn an income whether children were present or not.
But there were some constrictions that women found odious. Now they generally expect all the old considerations plus new ones. In reality feminism wasn't about throwing off chains but about getting more and more privileges and entitlements, a have your cake and eat it too situation.
"Did any of you geniuses speak up when pro-white-male bias was rampant?"
Yes, I spoke up. And I marched.
And I've lost track of how many thousands of pages I read and how many man-months I spent in seminars and what-not when it would have been much more fun to be out cycling, nightclubbing or watching a movie.
So, with all due respect, take your snide attitude somewhere else. This isn't about a "pity party" but an objection to bias double standards--or are you too wrapped up in your hate to understand that?
pst314,
Of course it's a pity party. The whiners like the sound of their own whimperings. At least give them credit for a good whine.
The REAL question was not asked be the article,
"Why do men die before their wives ?"
-- They want to.
Dr Helen has been oddly silent.
She must be contemplating what to do now that the sperm bank of commentary has been released on her site.
Girl.... you need to respond to this tsunami wave of testosterone.
(And I use the term "girl" with affection, especially given your studio signature photo. Yes, you are "hot." And, you intended to be, right? ;-) )
So Dr. H., (your intellectual persona...) what do you make of this fairly unusual flood of commentary on your site?
You have obviously noted the commercial potential, right?
But, more importantly, what have YOU learned?
americanwoman: Your question seems a bit odd to me. There's assumptions in it that are highly invalid, at best.
I once supported the rape crisis movement (money & time) in the no lost hope that those women would care about male suriviors. Sadly those women seem proud of the harm done to male survivors.
I faced life threatening discrimination due to several factors. That is the way it is/was. What seem odd is the open support among some peopel for MORE dangerous and life threatening discrimination against males! That is a sick and perverted indicator for our society.
Going back further in time, your assumption of power in white males losses a lot. My genealogy is quite complete and goes back to the early 1500's. Most of my male ancestors got the vote in the mid 1800's, a few in other decades. My female ancestors got the vote in 1893, 1917 & 1918 respectively (NZ, Canada & Britain). The seperation is small. I had ancestors alive when women got the vote who did not themselves have the vote when they reached age 21.
The power differential you speak of applies to a very small group of men. Most of us do not have a single man in the "powerful white male" group within our respective genealogies.
The above is true and should be obvious to all. Yet, you seem to want to punish men for having power, that they never had.
I do not understand such thinking.
Anonymous 11:10:
I have mainly been silent because I have actually had to work--remember, I still have a job outside of this one!
You ask what I have learned from this exchange of comments on this thread. Just as a general impression, I think that it is interesting that there are some women (like AmericanWoman and a few others) who can't stand the fact that there is a little corner of the world where men can exchange a few ideas about how they feel about men, society and justice.
I think they are so threatened and entrenched in the idea that women and minorites have special privileges and goodies being tossed at them by the left that they would rather trash the idea of the democratic principles of freedom, equality and fairness and make a deal with the devil.
Some women (or sockpuppet men) on this thread say that I seem anti-female etc. I don't care what they say, because the truth is, I care more about the universal principles free societies aspire to--freedom for the individual, rights for all individuals, equality under the law, equality of opportunity, and an inherent right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--than I do about being reduced to my sex in order to be thrown a few goodies by the feminists in exchange for being faithful to the "sisterhood."
I think many of the men and some of the women (although not many on this thread who are antagonizing others) understand that equality begins and ends with responsibility, fairness and individual rights--that is what this argument is about. It is a struggle between those like AmericanWoman who believe that revenge and injustice will make up for the problems of the past and those who wish to see the democratic principles that this country strives for prevail. I hope the latter wins out.
jw said...
I faced life threatening discrimination due to several factors. That is the way it is/was. What seem odd is the open support among some peopel for MORE dangerous and life threatening discrimination against males! That is a sick and perverted indicator for our society.
The power differential you speak of applies to a very small group of men. Most of us do not have a single man in the "powerful white male" group within our respective genealogies.
The above is true and should be obvious to all. Yet, you seem to want to punish men for having power, that they never had.
I do not understand such thinking.
It is called "feminism", which literally breaks down into "FEMININE-ism." It has nothing to do with reality, but is based entirely on how a woman feels. It is literally NOT thinking, but but instead is based on feeling. If a woman feels "oppressed" or "harassed", then, by god, she IS and that's all there is to it!!
The mentality you are seeing, jw, comes from the Marxist influence in feminism, which divides people into classes - men being the class with "power", and women being the class without "power". It doesn't matter that a woman might be wealthy, educated, and in the top levels of the social register, while the man is a coal miner or steel worker - it is all based on identity politics.
Hundreds of "wimmins's studdees" programs all over the westernized world have been churning out hate intoxicated little zealots for the past 30 years. Their purpose in life is to punish men of today for all these mythlogical atrocities of history which they have been drummed into their heads. It's a cult which has been financed by our taxes for over 3 decades.
Evidence to the contrary is irrelevant and is refuted, discarded, and shouted down - as we have seen ample evidence in this very thread. In fact, logic itself is dismissed as male/andro/phallo-"centric" and replaced with that "speshul wimmin's way of knowing" which means simply how she fee-yuhls right now.
Such people are never going to be swayed by reason, logic, and argument. As Oscar Wilde once said - what passes for thinking with most people amounts to nothing more than rearranging their biases. Women like AW outnumber women like Dr. Helen by thousands to one, and they will attack her as readily and quickly as they attack men, as we have also seen in this very thread.
That's what we face. They are going to continue to try to shout us down and shut us up with insults. They live for the purpose of hurting men - it is what gives their pathetic lives meaning. They won't stop as long as their terrorist tactics keep working and men keep giving them everything they ask for. If there is one thing that men should have learned from the past 4 decades, it is that. Sadly, it seems that most men still haven't. So many people still cling to the propaganda that feminism was about "fairness", when it always has been about tilting the playing field even further to women's advantage, and instilling in women hatred and contempt for men, boys, and all things male - because, you know, all women are victims of all men, and always have been. That "patriarchy" thing.
Zed,
Can we count you as one of those who thinks the playing field exists?
Helen said
It is a struggle between AmericanWomen who believe that revenge and injustice will make up for the problems of the past and those who wish to see the democratic principles that this country strives for prevail. I hope the latter wins out.
The great thing about holding the latter beliefs is that simply by holding them, the person wins. The person who takes responsibility for his own life also takes control of it as a direct result of that responsibility.
AmericanWomen may think they are hurting men and getting their revenge, but they are wrong. The people they are really hurting is other women - the ones who have silently gone along for the ride and enjoyed the playing field temporarily being tilted in their favor. Carey Roberts wrote a great summary of it called Women lose when Feminists Bash.
AmericanWomen have become so addicted to the goodies tossed to them by the left that they will find it very difficult to survive without them. Their bashing men alienates men from women in general, and a rapidly growing number of men are simply turning their backs on women. The silent complicity of the majority of women does nothing to counter the impression men are getting that all women are like AmericanWomen.
Articles claiming that US mothers "deserve" $134,121 in "salary" simply create the impression in men that Wives are like yachts, luxuries which cost far more than they are worth.
AmericanWomen are seeing the failure of their strategy of relentless attacks and hatred. More and more men are simply going their own way and refusing to hand a woman the loaded gun of marriage and child support. And so far, the best that most women (yourself being a clear exception) have to offer is "Well, not all women are like that!" Well, not all the toadstools which pop up in my front yard after a rain are poisonous either - but even the ones which aren't don't have enough flavor to make it worth the risk that they might be.
The way I see it, this battle is for women like you to fight. Articles like this one, "Men should prepare themselves for a shock," she told a recent conference. "Women's dissatisfaction lies at the bottom of their mind like magma. Husbands don't understand they are despised and disliked by their wives." convince men that marriage is a very expensive way to become so despised.
It's a lot cheaper, less stressful, and apparently makes women happier for men to simply avoid them. Given how unpleasant AmericanWomen are, that's a win-win situation for both sides.
Helen,
You wrote, "Just as a general impression, I think that it is interesting that there are some women (like AmericanWoman and a few others) who can't stand the fact that there is a little corner of the world where men can exchange a few ideas about how they feel about men, society and justice."
Can you tell us who can't stand the existence of the "little corner of the world?" I have seen people engage the content of postings on that little corner, but have seen nobody object to the existence of that corner. Can you help us out by elaborating?
JW,
Can you give us the specifics of the "life threatening discrimination" you mention? How was your life threatened? What was the specific discrimination? How was that discrimination linked to the thteat to your life?
Zed,
Did the article saying mothers deserve $134K make you think wives were like yachts? Are wives like yachts? Do you speak for all American men? If not, what percentage do you think you speak for? What percentage of American men think wives are like yachts?
Do you think Helen is a yacht?
American women aren't like yachts, but more like Harley Davidson's.
Louder, more expensive, and more dysfunctional than their Japanese counterparts.
I kid, of course.
American women aren't like yachts, but more like Harley Davidson's.
Louder, more expensive, and more dysfunctional than their Japanese counterparts.
And, there are those men who would rather push their Harleys than ride a Jap bike.
I'm not one of them. Happy pushing, guys. :-))
Dr. Helen replied --
(excerpt re. feminist women) "I think they are so threatened and entrenched in the idea that women and minorites have special privileges and goodies being tossed at them by the left that they would rather trash the idea of the democratic principles of freedom, equality and fairness and make a deal with the devil."
Why would you use the term "by the left" instead of "by feminism?"
VAWA 2005 was passed by 100% of Republican Senators and House Reps.
So, how does one equate misandry exclusively with "leftism?"
Are you seeking to posture yourself as a conservative-feminist?
How do you see a way forward, hopefully a way out of the rad-fem zero-sum gender wars?
Women and men connecting on a personal level, i.e. overcoming the bile and toxicity of the past 40 years of the Evil Patriarchy myth?
As a cinema afficiando,I really appreciate your (B/W retro) photo, and it's intriguing that you chose to do such a "glam shot" as your signature; references to Vivian and Marlene et. al.
Though I suspect that your mind is your most seductive organ, Dr. H. ;-)
And you have not yet actually responded to much of the content of the past 3,000 posts.
Your job may be changing soon...
While I'm not DrHelen, I surmise that 100% Republicans voted for the VAWA becasue they are cowards, as are most of our politicians at this point in time. They are more interested in figuring out how to get the most votes instead of doing the right thing. Hence, John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."
dadvocate,
Politicians do act to get the most votes. If they please their constituents by their votes, the constituents vote for them. They are doing what the people they represent want done.
Gee Dr. Helen, it's a good thing you have a blog, because you must be a REALLY bad psychologist.
I am certainly not 'entrenched in the idea that women and minorites have special privileges and goodies being tossed at them by the left', I don't agree they are 'special', simply equal.
For the record, I consider myself a libertarian, not a democrat or left leaning. I have always supported myself in adulthood. I don't think women should have privileges, but rights, equal to those of men. And I don't see how this threatens men unless they are unable or unwilling to compete fairly with women.
If women are succeding, I think it is wonderful. I don't see that men are failing or falling behind, just that things have changed for both sexes. Men are also free now to pursue other interest rather than being the breadwinner and have all the onus on them to suppor the family.
I don't agree with women who want it all, endless maternity leave AND promotions and raises at work. I don't have children and have made that decision. I therefore feel that since I don't take months off at a time, I will advance quicker than my mommy co-workers (or perhaps those daddy coworkers who chose to take leave). And there is nothing wrong with that.
The issue that is quite apparent to me is the HOSTILITY here, from you and most of the men. How dare some women believe they have rights! How dare women live longer than men, and not shrivel up and die as soon as their husbands do.
What I have seen here is not about society and justice. It is blind hatred and envy.
Whether you chose to acknowledge it or not, the US and the world is still owned and controlled by white men. And will continue to be so for a long time. So you can all relax.
Anonymous Said: Perhaps I am malevolent and juvenile. If that is the tactic that tilts the playing field in my favor, then it's a pretty good system.
Chris Key Says: A person who seeks to benefit at the expense of the host is known as a *parasite*, and such a relationship cannot only exist for as long as the latter possesses enough resources to support the two parties.
Socialism in general is based on the ability of men to support the demands of women, which is why women tend to live longer than men in the socialist nations of the Western world.
In the African nations where the women perform the physiological work, it is the men who live longer than the women.
The amount of resources that are required to support the current system is quite high, and that is why the ideologies of socialism cannot succeed over a long period of time.
In a socialist state, the most parasitic women will thrive at the expense of the hard-working men, however the resources that are required to support the system are unsustainable, and that is why feminism will fail over time.
Anonymous Said: I agree most of the inventions and scientific advances have been made by men. That's simple history. I applaud them and enjoy what they accomplished. So what? They were also made by white folks. So what?
Chris Key Says: It means that the claim of *women can do anything a man can do* is a logical fallacy, as women have contributed VERY LITTLE to the scientific fields, and that means the intellectually superior sex are men. It also means that the luxurious lifestyle that women currently enjoy is derived from the intellectual superiority of men; therefore if the men of society were to lose their chivalrous nature, then women would not be able to lead a luxurious lifestyle.
In other words, the arrogance of modern women is only going to cause a greater amount of men to alienate themselves from women and the socialist system, and that means women will be required to work until retirement and support themselves; something that more and more women are complaining about.
Anonymous Said: There are two parallel games in progress. One is tilting the playing field in one's favor. The other is playing on that tilted field. The smart folks have always tilted the filed before playing on it.
Chris Key Says: The intelligent persons of society have always known how to spell the word *field*, and they were not dependent upon the subjugation of others in order to succeed.
Only an inferior retard is dependent upon the introduction of affirmative action in order to succeed.
Using your logic, the men who REFUSE to work - you refer to them as weenies - MUST be extremely intelligent, as they're refusing to enter the workforce until it offers them a fair chance.
Anonymous Said: There have never been any rules when it comes to tilting the field. Good luck with your chivalry. How's it working for you?
Chris Key Says: Actually, the men of society are limited as to what they're allowed to say and do while they work, while women are usually allowed to slander and falsely accuse the employees and employers with impunity.
Anonymous Says: Does this include the whiners who complain the playing field is not level?
Chris Key Says: The men are merely discussing the manner in which the law system has subjugated men, and there is no malice intent within their argumentation, therefore it is absurd to imply that they're immoral brutes.
Anonymous Said: Oh, so CHIVALRY was the reason that men kept women with no voting rights, no property rights, no equal rights to work or school, etc.
Chris Key Says: The existence of Women's Only Universities can be traced back to the 1830's - almost two decades prior to the firstever Women's Rights Convention that was held on American soil - and women were allowed to work in many of the fields.
The lack of advanced machinery during the 19th Century meant that the physiological inferiority of women could NOT be neutralised, so women were unable to overcome the hazardous and physically demanding nature of most jobs, so they CHOSE to not perform them.
Belva Ann Lockwood became a teacher, she argued in front of the Supreme Court as a lawyer, and campaigned for Office; all during the 19th Century. If women weren't allowed to obtain an education and enter the workforce, then how can you explain the feats of women such as Belva Ann Lockwood?
Suffrage was only offered to the demographic who were required to take accountability for their actions, and as women received a large amount of legal impunity, that means they did not have to take responsibility for their behaviour.
The lack of electricity during the 19th Century meant that the preservation of food was less advanced and not as central as it is today, meaning that the production of food was far more difficult and was one of the main priorities of life at the time. The women were dependent upon the physiological strength of the men in order to obtain such products, and in return the women supported the men around the house, as such a system allowed for efficiency to prevail.
The women of today do not realise that the natural order of the world does not adhere to the ideological concepts of feminism and socialism, which is why such societies have never succeeded.
Without the presence of advanced technology, a society that does not exploit the sexual advantages of men and women cannot thrive, as the people cannot rely on technological intervention in order to accommodate for their weaknesses - which is why the sexes were willing to fulfill their roles during the 19th Century.
Also, a family could survive on the solitary wage during the 19th Century, which is why a lot of the women from that period chose to stay-at-home. Even in today's society, the majority of women who are able to live off their husband's earnings will do so as it is far more rewarding than having to work.
Anonymous Said: You said men are intellectually superior to women? And you accuse women of being malevolent?
Chris Key Says: Are you able to understand the very definition of *malevolent*?
Adjective: malevolent
1. Wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; arising from intense will or hatred
"a gossipy malevolent old woman"; "failure made him malevolent toward those who were successful"
2. Extremely malevolent or malicious
3. Having or exerting a malignant influence
"malevolent stars"
Noun: malevolence
1. Wishing evil to others
2. The quality of threatening evil
The vast majority of inventions have been created by men; the vast majority of persons who possess an IQ over 170 happen to be male; therefore how can my claim be considered a form of malevolence?
Anonymous Said: Also, you said the innocent women of the present and future will pay for the sins of their "feminazi" sisters? Wait. Weren't you one of those making the argument that it was immoral and illogical for feminists to argue for special treatment now based on historical abuses?
Chris Key Says: A straw-man fallacy occurs when a person refutes an argument that was not even raised by their opponent. In my post, I stated that all actions have consequences, and the manner in which women have acted will lead to men viewing women from a different perspective, and that will lead to men becoming less chivalrous and protective of women.
I NEVER stated that women should be subjugated due to past sins; I NEVER stated that men should be offered more privilege due to past sins; I merely said that men will be less trusting of women.
Chris,
A parasite does live off the host. Is it your contention that all the millions of working and productive women in our society are parasites?
I agree that women have not made the scientific contributions that men have made in the past. That does not mean they do not make them today, and certainly does not demonstrate thay cannot make them.
We can explore that idea further by noting that Indians and East Asians have not made nearly as many scientfic contributions in the past as white men have. However, we observe them making huge contributios today. (Are we observing a logical fallacy at work? Oh, dear!)
Hey, folks,
I haven't seen anybody offer a period in history when the playing field was level. Maybe Chris can help us. If the playing field has never been level, is it a logical fallacy to think it ever can be level? (I love to see posters call Logical Fallacy.)
Post a Comment
<< Home