Analogy: a swimmer is caught in a rip; a term describing a tidal phenomena where a strong current (that runs out to sea in a channel) drags you out to sea if you get caught in it. The rip represents any debt trap in this case and they both work in a similar way pulling you into deeper trouble.
A good article. I enjoyed the analogy...
But not as much as I enjoyed this video which makes the same point regarding the economic crisis:
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Men Harmed by Relationships More than Women
In the study of more than 1,000 unmarried young adults between the ages of 18 and 23, Wake Forest Professor of Sociology Robin Simon challenges the long-held assumption that women are more vulnerable to the emotional rollercoaster of relationships. Even though men sometimes try to present a tough face, unhappy romances take a greater emotional toll on men than women, Simon says. They just express their distress differently than women.
Well of course they are! NO MA’AM has been trying to explain this to people for a few years now.
I’m not surprised. Once you let loose the false notion that “gender is a social construct” and embrace the view that there are innate differences between men and women, it becomes rather obvious that women are “designed” to be scrumptious to men. The purpose of this is for women, being the “weaker” sex who are often “burdened” by children, to be able to procure protection and resources from their male love interests, often to the negative net-benefit of the male. In other words, women are designed to create self-benefiting reactions from a man towards her, and men are designed to be reactive to these manipulations from the female. In nature, men are “supposed to be” more reactive than the female.
Agreed!
Well, I’m not sure I agree with that. “Greater emotional benefits” are more of a subjective opinion than a hard fact. In the same vein of thought regarding “benefits,” one might also say that a person who is 150lbs gets “greater alcoholic benefits” from drinking 12 beers than a 200lb person. Yeah, sure. They’ll have a bigger hang-over in the morning too! And what’s the benefit of that?
Agreed again! My goodness, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with female academics and social scientists so much! In fact, many men find this out in marriage after the first baby arrives and intimacy with his wife begins escaping him more and more. A woman’s calling to care for her baby, as well as such intimate skin-on-skin touching from childcare such as breast-feeding, and, well just even holding the baby, often fulfill the majority of a woman’s emotional needs. Touching and being touched by other humans is key to one’s emotional wellbeing. Women also touch and hug other women at far greater rates than men do. For men who touch, if it is with other men they are presumed gay and are mocked, if it is platonicly touching a woman, they run the risks of being considered "creepy" and possibly harrassing, and if it is with children they are considered pedophiles and put under criminal suspicion. Something that is a social construct is the hysteria generated by a man’s touch. No kidding when he gets into an intimate relationship with a woman that he is overwhelmed by it – he may have gone without for months or even years without real human touch, whereas she may only go for a day or two without human touch.
Hmmm… ok. But who is sowing the seeds of this? She does not say. However, it has been my experience, both within intimate relationships and in relationships with women in general, that women’s favoured weapon during any “strain in the relationship” is to first, foremost, and always, attack a person’s identity and self-worth.
“He didn’t want to kiss me – He must be gay!”
“He didn’t behave like a servile worm and give me what I wanted – He hates women!”
“You’re such a loser.”
Well of course they are! NO MA’AM has been trying to explain this to people for a few years now.
I’m not surprised. Once you let loose the false notion that “gender is a social construct” and embrace the view that there are innate differences between men and women, it becomes rather obvious that women are “designed” to be scrumptious to men. The purpose of this is for women, being the “weaker” sex who are often “burdened” by children, to be able to procure protection and resources from their male love interests, often to the negative net-benefit of the male. In other words, women are designed to create self-benefiting reactions from a man towards her, and men are designed to be reactive to these manipulations from the female. In nature, men are “supposed to be” more reactive than the female.
Agreed!
Well, I’m not sure I agree with that. “Greater emotional benefits” are more of a subjective opinion than a hard fact. In the same vein of thought regarding “benefits,” one might also say that a person who is 150lbs gets “greater alcoholic benefits” from drinking 12 beers than a 200lb person. Yeah, sure. They’ll have a bigger hang-over in the morning too! And what’s the benefit of that?
Agreed again! My goodness, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with female academics and social scientists so much! In fact, many men find this out in marriage after the first baby arrives and intimacy with his wife begins escaping him more and more. A woman’s calling to care for her baby, as well as such intimate skin-on-skin touching from childcare such as breast-feeding, and, well just even holding the baby, often fulfill the majority of a woman’s emotional needs. Touching and being touched by other humans is key to one’s emotional wellbeing. Women also touch and hug other women at far greater rates than men do. For men who touch, if it is with other men they are presumed gay and are mocked, if it is platonicly touching a woman, they run the risks of being considered "creepy" and possibly harrassing, and if it is with children they are considered pedophiles and put under criminal suspicion. Something that is a social construct is the hysteria generated by a man’s touch. No kidding when he gets into an intimate relationship with a woman that he is overwhelmed by it – he may have gone without for months or even years without real human touch, whereas she may only go for a day or two without human touch.
Hmmm… ok. But who is sowing the seeds of this? She does not say. However, it has been my experience, both within intimate relationships and in relationships with women in general, that women’s favoured weapon during any “strain in the relationship” is to first, foremost, and always, attack a person’s identity and self-worth.
“He didn’t want to kiss me – He must be gay!”
“He didn’t behave like a servile worm and give me what I wanted – He hates women!”
“You’re such a loser.”
“Strain in a current romantic relationship may also be associated with poor emotional well-being because it threatens young men’s identity and feelings of self-worth, she says.”
“For young men, their romantic partners are often their primary source of intimacy – in contrast to young women who are more who are more likely to have close relationships with family and friends.”
“The researchers also found that men get greater emotional benefits from the positive aspects of an ongoing romantic relationship.”
“That means the harmful stress of a rocky relationship is more closely associated with men’s than women’s health.”
“Surprisingly, we found men are more reactive to the quality of ongoing relationships.”
(See the Fembot Bingo Card for a more complete list.)
Shaming language is far more the realm of women than men. A man gets pissed off and swears and shouts, and may even break something, and then he calms down after his outburst and returns to normal. But a woman scorned will make life hell for you for months afterwards by undermining your identity and self-worth. Haven’t you heard that “Hell Hath No Fury” line before? They weren’t talking about a woman’s ability to go Bruce Lee on people, you know.
In fact, other social scientists have found these differences to be stereotypical of male and female forms of aggression:
.
“Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
.
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).”
Carrying on with the original article:
Well, sure women express emotional distress with depression. They are permitted to! Even when women are the clear destroyers of a relationship, such as by cheating on the boyfriend, all of her girlfriends and family are standing by to give her hugs and sympathy and tell her it ‘wasn’t her fault – he must have been a real bastard to make her resort to that!’ And of course, there are a host of men lining up to be her next victim, er, boyfriend, who will also be quick to excuse her behaviour in order to score points with her. She gets enormous amounts of attention by being depressed.
However, it is a little, how should we say, “unfair,” to surmise that men deal with distress not by depression, but with ‘substance problems.’ Yeah, ok, substance problems as the result of being seriously depressed maybe! And for the young man, rather than receiving the sympathy the woman receives, he will find that he is constantly derided for "not treating her well enough,” or that “he must’ve done something to deserve it!”
So, not only does he fail to receive any sympathy, but he also receives all the blame. Often times, entire groups of people, who should know better, will join in the “blame the man game.” (See the above reference to Sex Differences in Aggression).
To top it all off, society will call him a loser for showing his pain, and other females will find him decidedly unattractive for doing so.
It’s no small wonder, with no other place to turn, that he might try to find solace at the bottom of a bottle. One needs to only examine suicide rates by gender, which are several times higher for males than females, and rather than write it off as some male defect, actually begin to surmise that there are no shortages of depressed males of all ages who feel there is no suitable place for them to turn.
One could also rephrase this by saying that young men are treating love as a verb whereas young women are treating love as a noun – something which she gets from others. Who loves her is not as important as that she receives love from somebody. A man in love bestows it upon the object of his affection, namely, the one specific person whom he is enamoured with. Women… mmm… not so much giving… but a whole lot of receiving.
This is why Florence Nightingale comes to the following conclusion about women:
“Women have no sympathy… and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." – Florence Nightingale
.Shaming language is far more the realm of women than men. A man gets pissed off and swears and shouts, and may even break something, and then he calms down after his outburst and returns to normal. But a woman scorned will make life hell for you for months afterwards by undermining your identity and self-worth. Haven’t you heard that “Hell Hath No Fury” line before? They weren’t talking about a woman’s ability to go Bruce Lee on people, you know.
In fact, other social scientists have found these differences to be stereotypical of male and female forms of aggression:
.
“Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
.
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).”
Carrying on with the original article:
Well, sure women express emotional distress with depression. They are permitted to! Even when women are the clear destroyers of a relationship, such as by cheating on the boyfriend, all of her girlfriends and family are standing by to give her hugs and sympathy and tell her it ‘wasn’t her fault – he must have been a real bastard to make her resort to that!’ And of course, there are a host of men lining up to be her next victim, er, boyfriend, who will also be quick to excuse her behaviour in order to score points with her. She gets enormous amounts of attention by being depressed.
However, it is a little, how should we say, “unfair,” to surmise that men deal with distress not by depression, but with ‘substance problems.’ Yeah, ok, substance problems as the result of being seriously depressed maybe! And for the young man, rather than receiving the sympathy the woman receives, he will find that he is constantly derided for "not treating her well enough,” or that “he must’ve done something to deserve it!”
So, not only does he fail to receive any sympathy, but he also receives all the blame. Often times, entire groups of people, who should know better, will join in the “blame the man game.” (See the above reference to Sex Differences in Aggression).
To top it all off, society will call him a loser for showing his pain, and other females will find him decidedly unattractive for doing so.
It’s no small wonder, with no other place to turn, that he might try to find solace at the bottom of a bottle. One needs to only examine suicide rates by gender, which are several times higher for males than females, and rather than write it off as some male defect, actually begin to surmise that there are no shortages of depressed males of all ages who feel there is no suitable place for them to turn.
One could also rephrase this by saying that young men are treating love as a verb whereas young women are treating love as a noun – something which she gets from others. Who loves her is not as important as that she receives love from somebody. A man in love bestows it upon the object of his affection, namely, the one specific person whom he is enamoured with. Women… mmm… not so much giving… but a whole lot of receiving.
This is why Florence Nightingale comes to the following conclusion about women:
“Women have no sympathy… and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." – Florence Nightingale
“While young men are more affected emotionally by the quality of their current relationships, young women are more affected by whether they are in a relationship or not, Simon says. So, young women are more likely to express depression when the relationship ends or benefit more by simply being in a relationship.”
“She also explains how men and women express emotional distress in different ways. ‘Women express emotional distress with depression while men express distress with substance problems,’ Simon says.”
.Of course, emotions have a purpose beyond just making us feel good or bad. They also have a biological purpose.
The emotions associated with “love” have an active purpose in reproduction, which is the most primal desire that exists in all living things after basic survival. It is a powerful force indeed, and neither player is good or bad, but rather both play their part just as with all other living things.
I am a believer in the theory of Rotating Polyandry. In a nutshell, the theory is that a woman’s “love” is based on a mating cycle of approximately four years. This is about how much time is needed for a man and woman to meet, have copious amounts of passion-fueled sex until the woman gets pregnant, gives birth and nurses the child until it is a more or less self-sufficient being that can walk, talk and feed itself. Of course, during this time when she is pregnant and with an infant, is when the woman and child will be most vulnerable of all and it is during this time that a male is most needed by them.
After this mating cycle is finished, in order to maximize a woman’s chances of passing on her genes throughout the ages, rather than being disadvantaged by having all of her children sired by the same man – in case of genetic defects and such - Nature makes her fall out of love with the man after his usefulness during this period. She thusly discards him for the next male, and goes through the process all over again. (Q: What's the definition of "confusion?" A: Father's Day in a Matriarchy.)
Also supporting this theory is that a man’s love for a woman is deeper than her love is for him. There is no biological advantage to a man falling out of love with a woman – in fact, just the opposite, as the more he stays in love the longer he will protect and provide. It works on the same principle that parents have a deeper love for their children than the child has for its parents – because nature dictates that the child must leave one day and strike out on its own. It is therefore better that parents are far more “in love” with the child than the reverse.
This also plays into the phenomenon of Male Spikes vs. Female Rhythms, similar to the above described differences between male and female forms of aggression.
It is incorrect to say that “women are more emotional than men.” It is more accurate to say that women have more kinds of emotions that affect them than men, while men have fewer emotions, but the emotions they do have run deeper.
The biological purpose for women having more kinds of emotions has to do with their role as nurturers of small children – who communicate far more through emotions than through direct communication. But, the biological purpose for a man’s emotions to run deeper is to cause him to sacrifice for women and children – sometimes with his life.
Of course, these innate differences between men and women come from our biological imperatives passed on to us from being part of the Animal Kingdom. However, humans are not animals. In fact, when one stands back and looks at things in a “big picture” sort of way, the art of being human is to conquer or resist our animal-ness. The conquering of these animal impulses plays a large part in “why” the dreaded patriarchy has existed since the beginning of recorded history and thus, civilization itself – for that was when we stopped behaving as beasts, and started refining what it was to be human by suppressing our natures for a greater purpose.
But, what do I know? I’m not even a social “scientist.”
DON’T GET MARRIED!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Bonecrcker #47 – Living in La-La-Land
Monday, June 14, 2010
Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies?
1). Quote: "I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists."
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
The Liberation of Men
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very
severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire
will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19
And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.
And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to.
Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on man's curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one's holding the short end of the stick (men) aren't the one's doing the manipulating!
.
.
No, in the situation of men's curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker?
But, it's not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.
Doing the Math
This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: "Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore..."
.
.
Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women's Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology.
For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more "risk averse." And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don't support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as "fact."
For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm... so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she "out-performed" because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man's 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man's pot of cash than with the woman's. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some "facts" media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren't they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn "the facts," doesn't it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren't oppressed by math.
Another ideologically driven "fact" that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace - especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This "women are more ethically pure fact" is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their "women are more morally pure" trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of "equality under the law," but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women's ethical and moral purity is greater than men's. For these very women who release such "facts" which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn't you agree?
And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their "careers," they only earn 76% of the wages that men do.
Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.
.
.
Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom's 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn't for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn't practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20... and so he doesn't make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too.
It's pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting "paid" $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he's getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again. Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!
All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It's such a simple formula for success that it's amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?
Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?
You can see the fraud of feminist "academics" and the media's complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart's recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was "a culture of discrimination" against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely "win" either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a "balanced and unbiased" view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women's Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous "Old Boys Club." But don't worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these "morally and ethically pure" women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women.
What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all.
One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.
In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to "discriminate" against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.
That's literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.
Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case, rather than reporting it as a "triumph for women," they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:
"Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!"
This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn't matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn't matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company.
In the same way, if Jack and Tom's university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer - especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack's 100% ratio with two players at Tom's 50% ratio.
And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?
Equal or "Equal?" (Wink! Wink!)
.
.
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991
When the Status of Women Canada, the "academic" juggernaut of Women's Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don't carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are "oppressed" because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker's Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It's so simple!
Of course, you know I am being facetious.
But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it.
What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO's or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It's not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It's like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that "our betters" in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace.
If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.
The Return of Aristocracy
It's not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women - while at the same time ignoring the fact that women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target - we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline.
.
.
Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets.
Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don't have to put up with such nonsense. You don't think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, "No thanks," and moved on to other professions.
In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That's some "equality."
.
.
Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
.
The essence of hypergamy is that women "marry up" while men "settle down." Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily "better" than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are "better" than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO's do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is "higher" than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to.
Now, many women counter this by saying that they "had to" marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It's too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men's super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don't earn as much money and thus, they aren't "pulling their weight." This is further evidenced by "kitchen-bitch" marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% - yes, that high!
Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with - especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage - as screwed up and broken as it already is - will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother's floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.
Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women's hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don't have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be "bums" if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs "work" for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men.
"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997
Mutilated Beggars
During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as "the mancession" because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men's jobs than women's, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman's Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men's faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds - funds they did not need nearly so much as men.
And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchoress, Kim Parlee's eyes, matching the spirit of her "unbiased" panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggar argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women.
.
.
Except... let's not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that "all families are equal."
But they aren't.
When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm.
But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?
Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge.
You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the most people in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.
This Way to See the Great Egress!
"There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit.""
.
.
Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don't think it has at first glance.
All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work. Society greatly enforced the "gender role" of men being the breadwinner who then passes on "the bread" to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn't follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive - when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man.
Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy... and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!
The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been "fun" for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn't feel overwhelmed with their "patriarchal power." But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were "oppressed" by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being "oppressed" by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one's friends, women will claim they have been "oppressed" throughout history for being "denied" the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.
I say, "Let them!"
Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren't attached to women and children - which feminism has done everything possible to make happen - they really don't need to work that hard. If you don't get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again.
Women are demanding to have our curse because "They don't need no Ma-yan!"
Let them take it!
Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work!
You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do!
.
.
Previous Index Next
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19
And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.
And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to.
Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on man's curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one's holding the short end of the stick (men) aren't the one's doing the manipulating!
.
No, in the situation of men's curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker?
But, it's not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.
Doing the Math
This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: "Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore..."
.
Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women's Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology.
For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more "risk averse." And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don't support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as "fact."
For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm... so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she "out-performed" because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man's 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man's pot of cash than with the woman's. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some "facts" media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren't they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn "the facts," doesn't it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren't oppressed by math.
Another ideologically driven "fact" that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace - especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This "women are more ethically pure fact" is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their "women are more morally pure" trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of "equality under the law," but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women's ethical and moral purity is greater than men's. For these very women who release such "facts" which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn't you agree?
And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their "careers," they only earn 76% of the wages that men do.
Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.
.
Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom's 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn't for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn't practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20... and so he doesn't make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too.
It's pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting "paid" $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he's getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again. Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!
All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It's such a simple formula for success that it's amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?
Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?
You can see the fraud of feminist "academics" and the media's complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart's recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was "a culture of discrimination" against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely "win" either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a "balanced and unbiased" view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women's Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous "Old Boys Club." But don't worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these "morally and ethically pure" women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women.
What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all.
One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.
In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to "discriminate" against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.
That's literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.
Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case, rather than reporting it as a "triumph for women," they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:
"Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!"
This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn't matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn't matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company.
In the same way, if Jack and Tom's university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer - especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack's 100% ratio with two players at Tom's 50% ratio.
And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?
Equal or "Equal?" (Wink! Wink!)
.
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991
When the Status of Women Canada, the "academic" juggernaut of Women's Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don't carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are "oppressed" because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker's Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It's so simple!
Of course, you know I am being facetious.
But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it.
What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO's or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It's not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It's like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that "our betters" in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace.
If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.
The Return of Aristocracy
It's not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women - while at the same time ignoring the fact that women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target - we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline.
.
Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets.
Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don't have to put up with such nonsense. You don't think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, "No thanks," and moved on to other professions.
In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That's some "equality."
.
Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
.
The essence of hypergamy is that women "marry up" while men "settle down." Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily "better" than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are "better" than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO's do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is "higher" than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to.
Now, many women counter this by saying that they "had to" marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It's too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men's super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don't earn as much money and thus, they aren't "pulling their weight." This is further evidenced by "kitchen-bitch" marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% - yes, that high!
Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with - especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage - as screwed up and broken as it already is - will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother's floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.
Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women's hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don't have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be "bums" if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs "work" for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men.
"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997
Mutilated Beggars
During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as "the mancession" because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men's jobs than women's, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman's Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men's faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds - funds they did not need nearly so much as men.
And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchoress, Kim Parlee's eyes, matching the spirit of her "unbiased" panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggar argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women.
.
Except... let's not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that "all families are equal."
But they aren't.
When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm.
But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?
Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge.
You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the most people in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.
This Way to See the Great Egress!
"There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit.""
.
Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don't think it has at first glance.
All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work. Society greatly enforced the "gender role" of men being the breadwinner who then passes on "the bread" to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn't follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive - when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man.
Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy... and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!
The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been "fun" for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn't feel overwhelmed with their "patriarchal power." But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were "oppressed" by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being "oppressed" by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one's friends, women will claim they have been "oppressed" throughout history for being "denied" the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.
I say, "Let them!"
Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren't attached to women and children - which feminism has done everything possible to make happen - they really don't need to work that hard. If you don't get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again.
Women are demanding to have our curse because "They don't need no Ma-yan!"
Let them take it!
Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work!
You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do!
.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women
Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator's hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier's life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.
The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizen have quite small properties, others have very large ones; hence the land has passed into the hands of a few. And this is due also to faulty laws; for, although the legislator rightly holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give or bequeath it. Yet both practices lead to the same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
The Man-Woman – by Hic Mueller, 1620
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this same issue, here is an abstract from the essay ”Rulers Ruled by Women” – An Economic Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights in Ancient Sparta
ABSTRACT: Throughout most of history, women as a class have possessed relatively few formal rights. The women of ancient Sparta were a striking exception. Although they could not vote, Spartan women reportedly owned 40 percent of Sparta’s agricultural land and enjoyed other rights that were equally extraordinary. We offer a simple economic explanation for the Spartan anomaly. The defining moment for Sparta was its conquest of a neighboring land and people, which fundamentally changed the marginal products of Spartan men’s and Spartan women’s labor. To exploit the potential gains from a reallocation of labor – specifically, to provide the appropriate incentives and the proper human capital formation – men granted women property (and other) rights. Consistent with our explanation for the rise of women’s rights, when Sparta lost the conquered land several centuries later, the rights for women disappeared. Two conclusions emerge that may help explain why women’s rights have been so rare for most of history. First, in contrast to the rest of the world, the optimal (from the men’s perspective) division of labor among Spartans involved women in work that was not easily monitored by men. Second, the rights held by Spartan women may have been part of an unstable equilibrium, which contained the seeds of its own destruction.
The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizen have quite small properties, others have very large ones; hence the land has passed into the hands of a few. And this is due also to faulty laws; for, although the legislator rightly holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give or bequeath it. Yet both practices lead to the same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
The Man-Woman – by Hic Mueller, 1620
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this same issue, here is an abstract from the essay ”Rulers Ruled by Women” – An Economic Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights in Ancient Sparta
ABSTRACT: Throughout most of history, women as a class have possessed relatively few formal rights. The women of ancient Sparta were a striking exception. Although they could not vote, Spartan women reportedly owned 40 percent of Sparta’s agricultural land and enjoyed other rights that were equally extraordinary. We offer a simple economic explanation for the Spartan anomaly. The defining moment for Sparta was its conquest of a neighboring land and people, which fundamentally changed the marginal products of Spartan men’s and Spartan women’s labor. To exploit the potential gains from a reallocation of labor – specifically, to provide the appropriate incentives and the proper human capital formation – men granted women property (and other) rights. Consistent with our explanation for the rise of women’s rights, when Sparta lost the conquered land several centuries later, the rights for women disappeared. Two conclusions emerge that may help explain why women’s rights have been so rare for most of history. First, in contrast to the rest of the world, the optimal (from the men’s perspective) division of labor among Spartans involved women in work that was not easily monitored by men. Second, the rights held by Spartan women may have been part of an unstable equilibrium, which contained the seeds of its own destruction.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
EOTM: This Is Zen
Like listening for the sound of one hand clapping, looking at this picture for a while will tell you all the essence of zen. It cannot be described, tho much good writing about it exists. Each of us leaves footprints in the sand as we travel through this adventure called life. If we pause for a moment and look back at those footprints, we are struck with their smallness and temporary nature when set against the backdrop of the immense elemental forces of the seashore. The yin & yang of the waves within the larger yin/yang of the tides will wash them away within hours, if the wind does not blow them away within minutes.
I call myself a zen priest, yet that is purely self-appointed. When I was young and full of myself, I wanted to be a zen master and teacher. One day it occurred to me that the road to mastery was to live it every moment. There are far more rewards from living it than from the public recognition of my "mastery". It is a remarkably fulfilling and serene way to view life. I promote it as an answer to the increasingly chaotic world in which we live.
In the best (perhaps only true) zen movie ever made, ”Cirlce of Iron,” the protagonist, Cord (that which binds), finds that all answers are found in the mirror. Today, in western culture particularly, all answers seem to lie outside ourselves. We are a culture of reacters, blamers, and victims. There are always buts, whys, and becauses which explain our destructive behavior. None of them make it non-destructive. The destruction and violence will continue until each person begins to stay one's own hand and take complete responsibility for one's own acts.
There are other cosmologies which include this, one in particular called Wicca, and I hope to be able to provide the means to explore them as well on these pages.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Philosophy and Theology: The Old Gods
Science and Technology: The New Gods
The Goddess and The God of the Wicca
The God
The Goddess
Monday, January 05, 2009
Buddha: Selected Writings of Nichiren
- Women are messengers from hell. They cut off the seeds of Buddhahood. They have the faces of bodhisattvas, but their hearts are like demons. Women can no more attain Buddhahood than can a dried up seed sprout.
- The course of a river and a woman's mind both wander. Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions. The right fades like a line drawn on the water. Women's nature is unsteady: though they see what they should be, they soon become what they should not be. Buddhahood is founded on integrity. Therefore, women, who are easily swayed, cannot become Buddhas. Women have the "five obstacles" (inability to become anything great) and the "three followings" (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son). Thus in one sutra it is written: "Even should the eyes of all the buddhas of the three worlds fall to the earth, women cannot become Buddha." Another text says: "Even if you can capture the clear wind, you can never capture the mind of a woman."
- The passions of all the men of the three thousand worlds and the hindrances to the salvation of one woman are comparably immeasurable.
- Among the three pleasures of Yung Ch'i-ch'i (in "Tales of Chuang Tzu") was the pleasure of not being born as a woman. He also named the pleasure of not being reborn in heaven as a woman.
- The course of a river and a woman's mind both wander. Water is malleable, it turns here and there when rocks and mountains block its path. Women are like this. They are inconstant as water. Although they know what is right, when they run into the strong will of a man, they are checked and turn in bad directions. The right fades like a line drawn on the water. Women's nature is unsteady: though they see what they should be, they soon become what they should not be. Buddhahood is founded on integrity. Therefore, women, who are easily swayed, cannot become Buddhas. Women have the "five obstacles" (inability to become anything great) and the "three followings" (follows first the father, then the husband, then the son). Thus in one sutra it is written: "Even should the eyes of all the buddhas of the three worlds fall to the earth, women cannot become Buddha." Another text says: "Even if you can capture the clear wind, you can never capture the mind of a woman."
- The passions of all the men of the three thousand worlds and the hindrances to the salvation of one woman are comparably immeasurable.
- Among the three pleasures of Yung Ch'i-ch'i (in "Tales of Chuang Tzu") was the pleasure of not being born as a woman. He also named the pleasure of not being reborn in heaven as a woman.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
EOTM: Welcome to Eye of the Mind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Visual Reality
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Philosophy and Theology
The Deep Water: Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Environment
Science and Technology
Creating the Future
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only in the mind's eye can things truly be seen. The blind man often sees more than his "sighted" cousin because he is less misled by the surfaces of things and is more interested in their substance. Perception includes mind, body, emotion and, most of all, spirit. One must be aware in all 4 dimensions to be fully alive.
Any and all possible futures will be seen first in the eye of the mind. We create the world as we see it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These pages are dedicated to those seeking to become accomplished artists in the Art of Living. Most artists become comfortable with a few selected media and materials. The selection of topics represent my favorites. Many more are worthy of consideration, but that's why there are other web pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two great mystical forces which rule the lives of human beings. One is the life force itself. The other is that elusive force we call consciousness. Life, we share with countless other entities on this planet. But we maintain the belief that consciousness sets us apart and above all other forms of life: that it belongs to the god-like alone. In our desire to be as gods, we have elevated the force of consciousness and begun to worship it while we have shown ever increasing contempt for all life save our own and, often enough, for our own as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I heartily agree with the geocities' stated philosophy of creating new communities on the new frontier and thank them for providing such a forum. The new milennium is upon us and humanity has pillaged the planet to support its ever growing need to consume. We humans, so anxious to see ourselves in the images of the gods & goddesses we worship, have achieved only one of the godlike powers, the power to destroy. We need to turn as much energy toward the power to create and generate as we have toward consuming the resources of the earth if we are to survive.
Today the cerebral cortex of the brain rules. People want to believe that all behavior is thought out in advance and that it follows the sterile logic of only half the brain, the left brain. Their analysis of the motivations underlying the behavior are speculative nonsense which leaves out 90% of the information available and adheres to a peculiar line of thinking specific to that individual. The results are presented as "logical" but there is no logic whatsoever behind it. It is merely the result of their own built in biases, which they are so close to that they cannot see.
The MIND is NOT the BRAIN. The mind is just as aware of the information it is receiving from the little toe as it gets from the 5:00 news. The mind has a sense of connection to a power greater than itself. And the mind receives information from something called the soul. There is something deep within us that is the essence of the will/desire/drive/whatever to be ALIVE. Something that BELIEVES and WANTS and KNOWS right from wrong.
We need to make people as mindful in their behavior as we currently would like to believe they are. My goal for these pages is to celebrate and provide a forum for the full development of all dimensions of the mind. I invite contributions and suggestions. I consider art to be an integral part of mental and spiritual development and I hope visitors will see a certain esthetic unity, if not homogeniety. Please comment on this aspect of the site as well. At present, I have only established the general structure of the site. Things that look like links hopefully will become so. Suggestions for sites in each of the categories are welcome.
While the content of this site is definitely "adult", it is not so in the sense that one usually sees on the net. My intent is to deal in subjects that only a mature mind can really grasp, thus the only ones interested in pursuing those subjects. While these subjects contain details of the type usually not easily discussed by parents with their children, I don't believe that anyone will find my treatment of the subjects to be offensive except that I don't cut people much slack for silliness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents who are willing to let the child indulge her/his own natural tendency to learn and question can freely move around this site if they use the eye as a navigation aid. The eye will lead to controversial topics, but the controversial discussions lie behind links which you have to look for. If the content intrigues you, you will be interested in reading further. Children will not. The eye will lead them on a tour and the big eye will always lead them home. Anyone willing to wade through the verbage to get the content, deserves it in my book. Most parents can rest secure in the fact that I am going to make it so much work that their children will never do it. Roam around yourself a bit first then, if you are comfortable with the content and the way in which it it addressed, feel free to bring your son or daughter back to start a dialogue on things you'd like to talk to them about. Sortof.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Visual Reality
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Philosophy and Theology
The Deep Water: Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
The Environment
Science and Technology
Creating the Future
.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Buddha: From "The Sutra of the Past Vows of Earth Store Bodhisattva" (Commentary by Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua - in America)
Sutra:
Buddha: "If there are women who detest the body of a woman, and who full-heartedly make offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva's image, whether the image be a painting or made of earth, stone, lacquerware, brass, iron, or some other material, and if they do so day after day without fail, using flowers, incense, food, drink, clothing, colored silks, banners, money, jewels, and other items as offerings, when the female retribution body of those good women is exhausted, for hundreds of thousands of aeons they will never again be born in the worlds where there are women, much less be one, unless it be through the strength of their compassionate vows to liberate living beings. From the power of the meritorious virtues resulting from these offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva, they will not receive the bodies of women throughout hundreds of thousands of tens of thousands of aeons.
Commentary:
Do not think that being a woman is a good thing, for being a woman involves a great deal of trouble. There are women who do not like it and always wonder why they have to be women; they want to learn what they can do about it. Through worship of Earth Store Bodhisattva these questions can be resolved.
What is the trouble involved in being a woman? Because there are people who might like to investigate this further, I will go into a bit more detail. You should not think of this as an attempt to cause women to dislike their state and leave home. If that occurred then there might be even more problems for me to deal with.
There are Five Obstructions and Ten Evils encountered by women. First we will discuss the Five Obstructions. The first is that women are not able to become the Great Brahma Lord because that position is accomplished through purity, and the body of a woman has a great many impurities. Second, women cannot become Sakra. An astute student may object that earlier we discussed the thirty-three women who became lords of the heavens. This objection is a valid one, but it should be realized that upon reaching the heavens their bodies became male, because only males can be lords of the heavens. Although Sakra has some desire remaining, that desire is quite light; women, on the other hand, are extremely libidinous and consequently cannot become Sakra.
Third, women cannot become demon kings. This is not too bad. They cannot attain this position because demons are extremely hard, solid, and firm, while women are extremely soft and weak. As soon as anything unusual comes up they are at a loss and have to seek help. Fourth, beings cannot be wise wheel-turning kings - the gold, silver, copper, and iron wheel-turning kings - as long as they have female bodies. Wise kings have hearts of great compassion and kindness; they teach people to maintain the Five Precepts and the Ten Good Deeds. Whenever women see something good occur to others, they become jealous, and this keeps them from having great compassion. Because of this basic problem, they cannot become Buddhas. Buddhas have ten thousand virtues; women have many evils. They are jealous and obstructive, and their hearts are about the size of a sesame seed.
If, however, women are able to rid themselves of jealousy, desire, weakness, defilement, and of all evils, they may become men, and so theirs is not a hopeless plight. There is, for example, the case of the dragon king's daughter. When Sariputra said that she could not become a Buddha, she took a precious gem, her most valuable and cherished possession, and offered it to the Buddha, who accepted it. She then asked Sariputra if the Buddha's acceptance of her offering was fast, and he replied that, indeed, it had been quick. "I shall become a Buddha that quickly," she said and then she became a Buddha. This is proof that women's lot is not hopeless. All they must do is resolve to cultivate courageously and they too can become Buddhas.
There are also Ten Evils that pertain to women. First, at their birth their parents are displeased. Although it is not always the case that parents are displeased at the birth of a daughter, in most societies this is the case, and a daughter starts out life by making a bad impression on her parents.
The second evil is that raising daughters is not a very interesting task. The third is that women are always afraid of people. Boys are not usually afraid, but girls almost always are. The fourth evil connected with women is that their parents undergo a great deal of worry about their daughters' marriage. In America this is not a major matter, but in most other countries parents have to give a great deal of consideration to finding good husbands for their daughters.
Once girls grow up, the fifth of the Ten Evils occurs, when they have to leave their parents alone. The sixth comes after they have been married and are in constant fear of their husbands. When a husband likes something, they are pleased, and when he is angry, they cower in terror. The seventh evil of women is the difficulty and fear of giving birth.
The eighth difficulty is that no matter what they do or say, the report gets back to their parents that they are not good. Although the good remains, it is a goodness that does not influence their parents. The ninth is that they are always controlled by their husbands and are subject to many restrictions, which, if broken, can lead to divorce.
The above nine evils apply to women in their youth. They are old when the tenth arrives and their own children and grandchildren slight them. As the proverb says, "To be old and not yet dead is to be a thief." These are only a few of the many problems involved with being a woman. To explain all of them in detail would be an unending task.
Buddha: "If there are women who detest the body of a woman, and who full-heartedly make offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva's image, whether the image be a painting or made of earth, stone, lacquerware, brass, iron, or some other material, and if they do so day after day without fail, using flowers, incense, food, drink, clothing, colored silks, banners, money, jewels, and other items as offerings, when the female retribution body of those good women is exhausted, for hundreds of thousands of aeons they will never again be born in the worlds where there are women, much less be one, unless it be through the strength of their compassionate vows to liberate living beings. From the power of the meritorious virtues resulting from these offerings to Earth Store Bodhisattva, they will not receive the bodies of women throughout hundreds of thousands of tens of thousands of aeons.
Commentary:
Do not think that being a woman is a good thing, for being a woman involves a great deal of trouble. There are women who do not like it and always wonder why they have to be women; they want to learn what they can do about it. Through worship of Earth Store Bodhisattva these questions can be resolved.
What is the trouble involved in being a woman? Because there are people who might like to investigate this further, I will go into a bit more detail. You should not think of this as an attempt to cause women to dislike their state and leave home. If that occurred then there might be even more problems for me to deal with.
There are Five Obstructions and Ten Evils encountered by women. First we will discuss the Five Obstructions. The first is that women are not able to become the Great Brahma Lord because that position is accomplished through purity, and the body of a woman has a great many impurities. Second, women cannot become Sakra. An astute student may object that earlier we discussed the thirty-three women who became lords of the heavens. This objection is a valid one, but it should be realized that upon reaching the heavens their bodies became male, because only males can be lords of the heavens. Although Sakra has some desire remaining, that desire is quite light; women, on the other hand, are extremely libidinous and consequently cannot become Sakra.
Third, women cannot become demon kings. This is not too bad. They cannot attain this position because demons are extremely hard, solid, and firm, while women are extremely soft and weak. As soon as anything unusual comes up they are at a loss and have to seek help. Fourth, beings cannot be wise wheel-turning kings - the gold, silver, copper, and iron wheel-turning kings - as long as they have female bodies. Wise kings have hearts of great compassion and kindness; they teach people to maintain the Five Precepts and the Ten Good Deeds. Whenever women see something good occur to others, they become jealous, and this keeps them from having great compassion. Because of this basic problem, they cannot become Buddhas. Buddhas have ten thousand virtues; women have many evils. They are jealous and obstructive, and their hearts are about the size of a sesame seed.
If, however, women are able to rid themselves of jealousy, desire, weakness, defilement, and of all evils, they may become men, and so theirs is not a hopeless plight. There is, for example, the case of the dragon king's daughter. When Sariputra said that she could not become a Buddha, she took a precious gem, her most valuable and cherished possession, and offered it to the Buddha, who accepted it. She then asked Sariputra if the Buddha's acceptance of her offering was fast, and he replied that, indeed, it had been quick. "I shall become a Buddha that quickly," she said and then she became a Buddha. This is proof that women's lot is not hopeless. All they must do is resolve to cultivate courageously and they too can become Buddhas.
There are also Ten Evils that pertain to women. First, at their birth their parents are displeased. Although it is not always the case that parents are displeased at the birth of a daughter, in most societies this is the case, and a daughter starts out life by making a bad impression on her parents.
The second evil is that raising daughters is not a very interesting task. The third is that women are always afraid of people. Boys are not usually afraid, but girls almost always are. The fourth evil connected with women is that their parents undergo a great deal of worry about their daughters' marriage. In America this is not a major matter, but in most other countries parents have to give a great deal of consideration to finding good husbands for their daughters.
Once girls grow up, the fifth of the Ten Evils occurs, when they have to leave their parents alone. The sixth comes after they have been married and are in constant fear of their husbands. When a husband likes something, they are pleased, and when he is angry, they cower in terror. The seventh evil of women is the difficulty and fear of giving birth.
The eighth difficulty is that no matter what they do or say, the report gets back to their parents that they are not good. Although the good remains, it is a goodness that does not influence their parents. The ninth is that they are always controlled by their husbands and are subject to many restrictions, which, if broken, can lead to divorce.
The above nine evils apply to women in their youth. They are old when the tenth arrives and their own children and grandchildren slight them. As the proverb says, "To be old and not yet dead is to be a thief." These are only a few of the many problems involved with being a woman. To explain all of them in detail would be an unending task.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies?
Quote: "I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists."
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: "I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: "I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
