The class of one of my sixth grade students had a two-class joint ethnic food party. Students brought food from their own culture or family and shared their origins with everyone.
Later in the day, I rejoined the class to be with my student. A middle aged plus teacher stepped in for the regular teachers for the period. She was being quite bitchy and then wondered why the students didn't want to cooperate with her.
When the class finally calmed down, she said, "All right, now I need some volunteers. Who would like to help clean up the classroom."
Of the 40-50 students, about 20 of them raised their hands. Only one or two of them were boys.
She then lit into the boys, scolding, "Now you're being sexist! Only one boy is raising his hand? It's not just a girl's job to clean up now,"...blah blah blah.
I wanted to say "Bullshit! If you don't want volunteers then don't ask for them!" or words to that effect, but I held my tongue. What do you all think? Should I report her? If so, how? Confronting her seems out of the question, as someone of her genre wouldn't respond to reason.
What ever the right answer is, I'm sick of seeing boys being shamed by our schools and society in general. I remember when I was in sixth grade and we were made to watch (by our female teacher) a movie about the women's movement and women's plight and so on. The girls of course loved it. They cheered, as we boys could only hang our heads in shame. I don't know about you, men, but I've about had it.
But I feel better getting this off my chest.
At present I am looking at issues of "choice for men" and "circumcision", also looking into educational institutions offering "Men's studies".
I think we have a major process here, reeducating ourselves to think of Gender discrimination from the male point of view. We are advancing somewhat in being aware of discrimination from the female point of view, that is, how they feel hurt, yet we are only able to begin to touch how we feel hurt, or how gender discrimination hurts men. After having gotten in contact somewhat with my own genital mutilation, my circumcision, I may be better able to relate to why women feel hurt at having their clitoris's removed, and hopefully vice versa. Until we come to realize how sexual discrimination affects us, we will be unable to truly appreciate how it effects them.
I don't want to be seen as a pro feminist, as that is not my issue. However, I think it would be wrong to ignore what they have gone through. For example, I would hate to see anyone questioning A women's studies program at a university, rather, we should push for development of Men's studies. And it probably won't happen overnight. Many individual women I have spoken with, have been most supportive of my struggle. I need women, sometimes much to my disgust.
About negativism, I note some people telling us what movies we should not watch, because they are anti male. I would sure like to see some list of movies we should watch, or TV shows we should see, because they portray men in healthier, more positive fashion (and maybe also women). I propose "Sirens" and "Don Juan de Marco"
I would like to hear of Canadian Groups or individuals looking into such stuff as Canadian anti Genital Mutilation legislation, also Fathers Rights, and Free Choice for Men in Canada. Also I would like to hear of any University or College that offers a men's studies course or program.
Perhaps you can help me. My wife and I have grown somewhat alienated from each other and probably would split up if not for our kids. She might want to at some point even before they're grown (I would prefer to stick it out at least until then). I want to be prepared, when I have to confront the issue of splitting up, for how to protect my assets as well as I can. Can you point me toward information on what kind of settlements are common in Georgia courts (or failing that, U.S. courts in general), and what steps experts recommend for strengthening one's position, and what arrangements are reasonable to seek in an uncontested divorce?
Now I'm sitting staring dumbly at this message for a few minutes, unable to believe I've written this. But I suppose I have to stop pretending problems are going to go away.
Take a look a the familyforum.com site and let me know what you think.
I am also working on a project with a professional counselor on a research project based on Father-Son Relationships with the target group being abusive men.
We are going to see how effective the Net is for collecting information by posting a questionnaire for men in treatment and post treatment.
The goal of the research is to create a counseling instrument to be used by group leaders who treat these men. I'll keep you posted.
My girlfriend (and potential future wife) is a high school science teacher. She is also of Indian descent (Her parents were born in the province of West Bengal, although she was born in Canada), and was discriminated against in many ways.
I myself was born in Canada an Anglaphone white male (Which is the worst thing to be in Canada as far as being considered 'the enemy'), and you can likely immediately guess the reactions I get whenever I say anything to do with equality. (Remember, women cannot be sexist, dark skinned people cannot be racist, etc.).
I see to many people falling into the 'us vs. them' situation - men or women who discriminate against the opposite sex because it is becoming more and more 'the thing to do', even though gender equality is what they all seem to be pretending is their ultimate goal... It's nice to see others out there that remember that equality means to be equal, and you don't have to try to achieve equality by discriminating against whomever is considered 'the majority' at any given time.
Visit my home page.
XY is a magazine focused on men and masculinity. In XY you'll find both personal stories of men's lives and discussions of masculinity and the changing relations between men and women. XY is published quarterly in Australia.
XY publishes a variety of writing on men and masculinity. Our editorial guidelines are as follows: "XY affirms a healthy, life-loving, non-oppressive masculinity, and supports the men's networks for change in Australia. XY is a space for the exploration of issues of gender and sexuality, and practical discussion of the hows and whys of personal and social change. XY is male-positive, pro-feminist and gay-affirmative."
XY is not sponsored by Coca-Cola. In fact, the magazine is non-profit and produced by a group of volunteers.
Subscriptions within Australia for 1 year/4 issues are $19 or $14 (concession), $40 institutions. For 2 years/8 issues, it is $36 or $27 (concession), $76 institutions.
Overseas subscriptions: Add $22 per year for airmail or $10 per year for sea-mail. New Zealand add only $10 airmail.
All subscriptions must be in Australian dollars, payable to "XY Account". Subscriptions commence with the next issue so allow up to 12 weeks for your first copy to arrive.
Sample copies are $6 in Australia, or $10 overseas (in Australian dollars).
Send all correspondence to PO Box 26, Ainslie ACT 2602, Australia. Phone/fax [06] 248 5215. E-mail: michael.flood@anu.edu.au
Specific overseas info: Subscriptions for 1 year/4 issues are $41 (air mail) or $24 (sea mail). For 2 years/8 issues, it is $58 (air mail) or $37 (sea mail). All subscriptions must be in Australian dollars, payable to "XY Account". Subscriptions commence with the next issue so allow up to 12 weeks for your first copy to arrive. Sample copies are $10 each.
In particular, I'm interested in the "post-structuralist" work of critics like Helene Cixous, who rely mostly on the work of Jacques Derrida and Jacques Lacan. What I would like to contest, and what angers me most about Cixous' work in particular, is the idea of what Derrida called "phallogocentrism," a term that has allowed critics such as Cixous to equate all male endeavor--all civilization, in other words--with the penis.
Camille Paglia similarly uses this paradigm to suggest that men learned how to make culture by observing their projecting penis. On a common sense level, this doesn't wash for me. Anyone with a penis knows that its most common state is limp and ineffectual. And yet many feminist scholars rely on the idea of the erect penis being at the center of all male thought (logos) and accomplishment.
Paglia uses the act of male urination as "proof" of this. I believe, however, that hands were really responsible, or, more accurately, the lesson of instrumentality they taught us.
Nevertheless, the penis and its obvious sexual suggestiveness have become the ruling metaphor for feminist, post-structuralist discourse. Its connotations are always negative and manipulated to produce guilt in men and ridicule in women. Here are a few samples of Cixous:
"As a woman, I've been clouded over by the great shadow of the scepter and been told: idolize it, that which you cannot brandish [here Cixous is criticizing a Freudian concept]. But at the same time, man has been handed the grotesque and scarcely enviable destiny (just imagine) of being reduced to a single idol with clay balls."Reduced by whom? one wonders. Here is another:
"[T]he phallologocentric sublation is with us, and it's militant, regenerating the old patterns, anchored in the dogma of castration.... Such is the strength of women that, sweeping away syntax, breaking that famous thread (just a tiny little thread, they say) which acts for men as a surrogate umbilical cord, assuring them--otherwise they couldn't come--that the old lady is right behind them, watching them make phallus, women will go right up to the impossible."Notice the reliance on Freud, a set of principles that has largely been discredited--by Cixous herself in other work--but here is appealed to as if it were fact: fear of castration, Lacan's idea of "Father as Law." Notice also the link between men's (phallo) logocentrism (here presented as language), the male sex drive, the Oedipal complex and the relationship (for men) between Eros and Thanatos, the death instinct.
I won't bore you with any more of this tiresome stuff. It is mine to endure as a student of English, not yours, you lucky devil. Suffice it to say that, for Cixous, language is the creation of man, and women must create her own language (which will somehow--mystically, magically--spring from the body) to break free of the dominion of men. In the process, she reduces all male endeavor to Oedipal yearnings, fixation on the phallus, and even the death drive, at the same time privileging women with the spiritually pure, honest and loving feminine creative force, which Cixous paradoxically asserts lies with artists such as James Joyce (she negates his masculine principles to do so).
What I want to know from you is what is being done in the masculist movement to refute the ideologies of feminist literary theory. I never see any of it in textbooks, which no doubt is a function of the protected space given to feminism in the university. Do you know of any literary/masculist journals devoted to debating ideas such as Helene Cixous'? If so please pass them along. I'd greatly appreciate it.
I like your articles, but I think your assertions of the matriarchal pre-history of humankind would be swayed if you looked at Steven Goldberg's "The Inevitability of Patriarchy," in which he refutes many feminist, anthropological claims that early societies were matriarchal. It's pretty convincing stuff, hated in feminist circles but yet to be adequately refuted.
Editor: Thanks, but I asserted a matricentric pre-historic humanity, not matriarchal.As for refuting the ideologies of feminist literary theory, good question. Anybody?
Despite my name, I am male. (Outside the North Americas Lindsay is often a male name, but can be either!)
Keep up the good work.
Men are physically different than women. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be psychologically different as well.
Throughout history (and perhaps throughout a lot of the animal kingdom), there has been a frequent pattern of men going out hunting or working in the factory and woman staying home, cooking and sewing and cleaning. Note that I said the men did this OR that, while the woman does this AND this AND this. What men do requires focus, skill, specialized knowledge. What women do requires breadth, experience, wisdom. All I am saying is that this pattern has been common until the last twenty years or so.
I would like to suggest (just as a point of discussion) that there is a major benefit to this pattern: division of labor. If everybody shares equally in all responsibilities, everyone needs to know about a wide range of things. If one of the people specialize, they can become much better than the generalist and make way more money (or catch more deer). Running a household requires a good generalist. A generalist can support a specialist by providing a household, and the specialist can support the generalist by making a lot more money than the generalist could ever make.
I would like to suggest that there is an evolutionary advantage to pairing a generalist with a specialist and that the psychologies will have evolved to make women better generalists and men better specialists.
This would explain why most great inventors, painters, etc. etc. are men - they are all specialists - good in their own field.
I think that, on average, women make better mothers than men. I find it interesting that I could practically get locked up for having said that today. Anytime from two million years ago until thirty years ago, it would have been considered nuts to say such an obvious thing.
This idea would also suggest that women, on average, would make better business managers. It's the same basic job.
I have sort of thrown this note together because I have stuff I have to get done. If you would like me to say this again in a more coherent (or however that is spelled) way, let me know. Any comments would be appreciated.
That is to say, the fact that man and woman are created with very different tendencies, abilities, qualities, and desires, has been perpetuating the same cycle which has kept families safe, fed, and basically happy for millennia.
At the risk of dredging up the ever-controversial concepts of The Human Animal and Social Darwinism, it can perhaps be said that the different qualities of each gender - and there are evidenced, general, identifiable differences - are there because they play an integral role in the procreation of our people. For instance, you mentioned the quintessential male quality of desiring to protect women. Well, of course. Look at males: they are physically bigger, stronger, and do indeed have a greater tendency to resort to violence to deal with problems.
Taking off the Hat of Equality which dictates that we are born with no gender-specific tendencies, let's look to the past. Men served three basic purposes: to impregnate, protect and provide. It's true, and let's not dismiss it before I attempt to tie it into an identifiable point - man's (lower case M) genetic, physical, and mental qualities are perfectly adapted to suit this task. Add the concept of chivalry and love for one's mother, and the case is almost proved. When one examines the much-publicized media representation of men desiring sex, the point is driven home.
But, some would say, those are society-imposed stereotypes! Of course, why do you think they are there? Where did they come from? Did some wealthy, fat man sitting in a plush office suddenly dictate, "And so shall men desire sex in apparently greater quantities and frequencies than women"? Of course not. It was always like that and, like it or like it not, it had to have played a role in our survival.
And then, some would say that the supposed increase in violence against women disproves the "protect" theory. But then, it's not hard to see how men in general feel threatened. In a primitive, primordial fashion, we are being challenged for the leadership of the pride. Does this excuse rape, assault, murder, and molestation. Most definitely NOT! But why don't we let it give us insight which will allow us to end it.
So what about the women's side? Ask one hundred women of any age whether or not they want to have children, and I GUARANTEE it will be either more positive than the result of asking men of any age, or at least decidedly more enthusiastic. At the "binary," fundamental base of our species, indeed of most life (with some bizarre exceptions), the men impregnate either the female, or material from the female. The males fertilize the female, the female has offspring. So it is with us.
Let's step away from the human race so as to provide a sort of androgenous viewpoint. Look at prides of lions. The male impregnates the female, the female gives birth, but it is the females who hunt for and protect the pride. Male lions are often chased away quite savagely when their deed is done. Is this offensive? No. It's nature.
Look at the preying mantis. The male impregnates the female...and then promptly becomes lunch. The natural order of things. African elephants have but one male in each group, the others roam in search of another group to challenge.
Are we animals? Yes. Very refined animals, though. And it is the culmination of our refinement, our evolution, which is providing the impetus for this problem of equality: our intellect. Lower animals are content with the ways things are, because they are just both tools and products of nature's unendable sweep of continuity.
But then came Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Our intellect, indeed the intellect of both genders, increased, and the "have-nots" saw what they thought were the "haves," and they saw what they thought they wanted. Regardless of the past, regardless of nature, just because reason and logic dictated it was so. It probably had to happen. And perhaps it is a good thing. In fact it probably is indeed a good thing, in that it has caused us to open our eyes.
So, what conclusions can be made?
Probably none for fear of retribution by zealous, holier-than-thou "pop feminists". But how about these?...Things were the way they were up until the last century, indeed the last few centuries, because of genetics, evolution, and Nature In The Abstract. When survival is an issue, we revert to our Natural being and families revert much to the way they began.
That is, a woman in a posh condominium during a time of economic explosion can pick and choose Who, What, Where, Why, and When, but when the chips are down and death is a possibility, then what happens? It is our genetic, natural instincts and abilities which have kept us alive, and now we are tampering. The differences between Man and Woman were the key to our survival. What indeed will happen with your Androgenous Chivalry? The desire not only to be treated the same, but to think the same, regard life the same, regard morality the same, etc., etc.what will this do to us?
I am in college and there is a hot-bed of anti-male activity on many campuses. Some courses at the schools I have attended (both in NYS) forcefully disallow men from participating. I believe Christina Hoff Sommers spoke about this phenomenon in a conference after writing "Who Stole Feminism?" I know two who fit the angry feminist mold perfectly ("with an ounce of pain, they wield a ton of rage" C. Cornell:-)) However, (as CHS said) they truly believe there is a war. I believe they are conscientious people who, like religious zealots, are quick to react to even flawed information.
It was pointed out wonderfully in your January '95 article that the issue is reconciliation either through equality or recognizing and celebrating differences in men and women and in people in general not discrimination and intolerant behavior.
I will be checking in on your page often, I just had to write to give my two-cent support.
I gave up hope long ago that men would ever be fully human and less violent. My hope now is that women will become more violent. Kill him before he kills her. Take weapons classes and be ready for him when (not if, but when) he goes on a testosterone-crazed rampage. Cut the penises off rapists, then kill the slimebags. Stalk and kill wife-beaters.
Lest you think this is too extreme, I invite you to read the headlines and see who is committing the carnage.
And that's what I think of your "Backlash" crap.
Editor: Thank goodness for the unbiased reporting of domestic violence by the media. ;-)
In truth, romance novels give the idea that it's possible to find men who not only respect women, but who are capable of kindness and heroic acts, large or small, and making sound moral choices.
Sometimes a woman has to look carefully, sometimes it's apparent. Is this truly a fantasy? If this is what you think, then I feel sorry for you. I, for one, have found such a man, and he's no Fabio (excuse me while I gag), thank God, but a kind, supportive, hardworking man, who is both a great husband and father.
I am also a romance reader and writer, and understood if I looked hard enough I'd find one like him. Most romance readers and writers are like myself. We wouldn't be reading and writing romances if we hadn't experienced what real men are like, and know how different each one is.
There are good men and bad, gentle and abusive ones. We are not so stupid to think that fantasy is reality, any more than a mystery reader thinks that just because the crime is punished at the end of a mystery novel that it happens in real life as well. Believe me, it's not abused women who read romance novels.
And, what do you know, I'm a feminist, too.
Enough of stereotyping, please! I do not stereotype men, and I'd appreciate it if people would not stereotype romance novels, and by association, women.
I believe you when you say you're egalitarian. Most people are, most women are and most feminists are. Catharine MacKinnon is wrong and so is Robert Bly.
I'm confused by your assertion that "if you're not going to do anything about it yourself, then you have no right to criticize those who are doing something about it." It seems to me this is variation on the if-you-don't-vote-don't-complain-about-who's-elected argument.
My point, however, is that there is nothing that we as men have to do. That is, we have things really good right now, as we always have, and waging a campaign against a few militant feminists is rather disingenuous. I believe that we should take these criticisms in stride, given that our gender has earned such attacks due to our legacy of domination over the years.
I personally am willing to suffer the slings of a few angry people rather than try to deny my culpability. So when you say I shouldn't criticize you because I haven't "done anything," you are merely proving my point.
You mentioned that people should "stop sitting quietly by while the feminist extremists gain more and more power." I'm not sure where you get this since the political mood of this country seems to be ever-more conservative. I have yet to see situations where extreme feminists have gained power. If anything, their increasingly shrill attitude seems to be due to the fact that they know they are losing the P.R. war. Can you site examples where feminists have won political or social battles that were not simultaneously right-wing conservative battles (i.e. banning pornography on the Internet)?
The final point I'll make before I go is that in writing to you originally, I was expressing recognition -- be not acceptance -- of your view. Your reply suggested a desire to fight me rather than to win me over. This has been my problem with the few militant feminists that I have met -- rather than convince me of the validity of their beliefs, they prefer to attack. Likewise, you will not win converts with such an attitude. I'm not one of the ignorant masses who doesn't "get it" -- I'm a liberal, educated, well-read young adult who is open to new ideas.
Editor: In the state of Iowa, many divorced fathers go to prison as the result of false accusations of sex abuse. Their life expectancy in prison is less than 3 years. Try feeding your baloney about a "P.R. war" and the implication leaders of the political conservatives are our friends to them.
The return address is a result of incorrect preferences and should not be taken as the return address. Thanks.
Editor: Actually, I've never seen Spinal Tap. Thanks, anyway.
We'll be on the air: Tuesday evenings between 9 and 11 on KYPA 1230 AM on the dial.
We will not be doing a therapy show. We will open the lines to discuss the relationship and issues between women and men and we will do it from a balanced perspective. We will also talk about issues that the mainstream stations do not cover.
We have purchased the time and have to get sponsors. We already have five - a chiropractor; an author, Art Klein, who wrote "Dad & Son;" a web page designer; a woman who does non-surgical face lifts; and a stock broker.
We offer rates that are considerably lower than any of the other stations in LA and the coverage area includes all of Los Angeles county, parts of Riverside county to the south and San Bernadino county to the east.
If you know of anyone who could advertise with us, have them call us at (310) 829-3353 for details.
Tuesday evenings -- 9 to 11 -- KYPA 1230 AM on the dial.
I've posted it in my cubicle... fwiw: one of the reasons our site decided NOT to observe tydtwd is because BOYS would not be included. Instead, we will have an open house on a weekend.
I sent my THANKS to the HR director.
Its a new and exciting site covering many issues arising out of separation and divorce. It carries the best set of legal resources on the Net, articles and treatises on children's rights, paternal rights, international law, abduction and so forth.
The magazine has great graphics and articles in other areas such as sport, fashion, food, humor and sexuality.
Please link us to your site.
I'd like to give you another horror story for your files. I sold my business up north and moved here (Florida Keys) some 10 months ago. I have been looking for another business but did purchase a condo to call home.
I had only been here a couple of weeks when I was asked to join the Board of Directors of the condominium association. It seems that the only other male on the board had just resigned. Being as opened minded, as you seem to be, I thought" 4 women and one man...yah its possible". After all we all had the same goals: keep the place clean and improve property values. My first suggestion was to replace a 1981 pick-up truck. It was not only old but unsafe.
They opted for a new computer and put two tires on the truck. They wanted to give raises to our staff: one female secretary, one male maintenance supervisor, and his two employees, one male and one female. They were a good crew and deserved the money; however, the secretary was to receive $1.00 and the male maintenance supervisor was to receive fifty cents . I argued that this could cause problems with morale but the majority ruled.
A week later, it was a Sunday, the supervisor knocked at my door with a problem. It seems that a water pipe had broken to feed a particular inhabited unit. He went on to explain that he had worked 8 days straight and wanted to go home (none of our employees live on premise). The alternative was to call in a plumber. With lightning fast business savvy I calculated a minimum expense of $175.00 (later to learn, that was low). I asked how long the job would take. He responded "3 Hours". I offered him double time to fix the problem (approx. $75.00). He agreed, and the problem was fixed.
The backlash from the girls was that I was in too close with the employees and it should have been fixed for straight time, and further that I was weak and as such would be removed from further dealings with the maintenance staff. It is important to note here that board members are not paid, strictly voluntary. This is where I should have resigned the position but was talked into staying on by other non board members.
Maintenance supervisor retaliated by citing one of the board members for owning two cats (pets are prohibited here). She retaliated by having a meeting with the other girls (I was not invited) and they fired him. A few days later they targeted the other male maintenance male. They forbid him from driving the truck as they suspected missing petty cash. He took offense and asked for a meeting with the president and myself. At that meeting I suggested a polygraph test. He anxiously agreed but was fired a few moments later for comments he made regarding the affront to his reputation.
Two weeks later the female secretary was fired for a $33.10 shortage in the petty cash. The one remaining employee, a self avowed lesbian, was distraught over the break up of her relationship and needed money and time off. The president of the board personally loaned her $500.00 and gave her two days off. I resigned.
Keep fighting the good fight Rod. It is our common hope that common sense prevail!
However, this does not mean the complete avoidance of marriage, an institution created by God for the betterment of man(and woman)kind, it only means being selective in the marriage process. Yes, some men are controlling. However, so are some women.
Editor: I never submitted our url to Alta Vista. Maybe somebody there just likes our site. :-)
I find myself wanting to write about some things that have crossed my mind lately ! It seems that every way I turn today all I find are double-binds. In relationships, in the courts, in politics........ on and on !
The expectations of our culture are a heavy load for us males. I want to find some way to wake up my brothers out there.
I read email to the editor and just don't understand why some of these men allow themselves to be manipulated by their women ?????
It looks like to me most men (like a lot of women) think that they have to have a mate in order to have an identity. It's nice to have love and affection, to have someone who loves us, someone we can love. But why is it that we men keep falling for the same old sexual trap?
Why, for God's sake, do some men keep putting themselves in the same position? If all it takes is a women to accuse them of assault and they are in jail, why do they have anything to do with these women? They wouldn't go after a bear in it's cave! I wouldn't screw around with a rattle snake! What gives here? Are we males that stupid?
Is it that easy for them to manipulate us ? All some good looking woman has to do is offer a hint at giving us love, affection, and sex and we take the bait !!!!!!
Wake up brothers !!!!!!! You don't have to have a woman to be somebody!
We are being manipulated at every turn ! The TV adds are the worst! It's like a man is not a man without a woman. Are we all still victims of our social programming!
The shows on TV mostly portray men as bumbling idiots, and the majority of people believe it.
The majority of people watch these fantasies and feel satisfied for a while. They seem to live out their lives through the TV and the movies.
The media has control of our lives and we just can't seem to do anything about!
Why is it so hard for people to think and use their brains? Why can't they see through all this bullshit?
Take Clinton and Dole! There is not a nickel's worth of difference between them! They both want to maintain the status-quo so they and their friends can continue to get our money! They don't argue about what's right for our country. They only disagree about which one gets the most of our money and which of their friends will share in it. It's all a popularity contest.
I want to challenge every reader of this great effort to visit this site and see what other people think and have to offer. It will take a little time to explore this page to it's fullest, but I think you will find it very rewarding.
It is also a great effort like The Backlash!
Thanks Rod for your hard work on your new stuff. I wish that I could be of help to you, and I'm sure that your efforts are having a great effect.
What am i looking at? A world that is being devastated by accusation and bigotry. I was wondering why I refused to work. I want to be a woman and have a husband take care of me like the pathetic invalid I am.
I would contact a rape crisis hotline but I am afraid they would take me for a crank caller and mock me and hang up.
Will the pain ever end? I know anger is wasted energy but I can't get past it. It blocks my path like a raging volcano. I feel like the only way to stop the eruption is to climb the mountain and plug the caldera with my giant erect penis. It is a formidable weapon you know. Or so I have been told since coming of age in this woman's America.
I just wish The Backlash was on a weekly basis.
Women are so much more than that. Personally speaking, women provide a sense of "home". What's a big salary that earns you that big beautiful home if it's empty? You can try filling it with big chested bimbos but in the end only one thing will really last and that is LOVE not SEX.
It is beneficial for the potential husband and wife to be "friends" before marriage-that way this constant pressure of "sex" is not always starring you in the face. We are human beings NOT a wild animal therefor we should be able to curb our sexual desires. If you can't, you truly are the "PIG" she's calling you.
Editor: Since none of my girlfriends have ever called me a pig, I assume you mean somebody else. Regardless, in my experience most of the people who think men equate love with sex are women, while most of the people who think women equate love with love are...men.I think you are referring to my little suggestion with regard to "sexual alimony." A little satire, anybody?
Regardless, as I have written elsewhere, the difference between being just friends and being lovers is sex. Unless, that is, you subscribe to the sad idea that lovers can't be friends.
Just a word to say I like your articles. I fully understand and agree with them. Keep it coming!
You want to really be "bad?" Really "bad" people don't signal their intentions. Outwardly the appear calm and ordinary. They infiltrate the establishment and weaken it from within. A fifth column is often better than a direct attack. They think they have no opposition to fear and so they disarm.
We want them to feel secure and disarmed. Then launch a well-thought-out blitzkrieg, and never do more damage than you have to because you are going to have to go on inhabiting the system after your enemies have been dislodged.
A great number (and growing) of women have thrown their razors in the trash can. They let their naturalness show. Not wearing makeup is another way to let men know that they don't rule over women and can't dictate everything that goes on in women's lives. Women who appear in public "natural" are far more attractive to both men and women who have enough sense to realize that it is what is on the inside of a person that is important.
imho
Editor: "What makes you think women wear makeup for men?" is a recent pop feminist battle cry. It's either our fault or their choice, whichever serves their cause at the moment. Personally, I like the idea of individuals choosing for themselves, but pop feminists seem to think the idea that men should have a choice in anything is sexist.
I also would like to know how and why women can get-a-way with kidnapping their children when custody has been awarded to the father. why is it that if caught she does little or no jail time. What can we do about this anti-male, anti-father attitude by women, some of who kill their children by either murder or by starvation as had been reported recently in the media.
However, dealing with college males every day, it does become rather difficult to say that "sex isn't all they want" from a female.
Editor: Very good point. The problem is that civilization runs counter not only to the pop feminist agenda, but to many basic human drives, like sex, and at no time is the male sex-drive higher than during the first several years following puberty.At one time our society controlled this with mores and morals. The pill, the sexual revolution, and women's liberation changed that. Okay. So, here we have a lot of guys who have been socialized to pursue, persist, take no for an answer until she says yes to marriage, and now they are confronted by a bunch of pill-packing, liberated young women who want to 'have it all."
From personal experience I can tell you it was like walking out of a department store and suddenly finding yourself in the middle of a farmers' market where everybody dickers, the action is free wheeling, and if you don't hustle you lose.
When the promise of a long-term committed relationship is no longer written into the rules, pop feminists are demanding an end to marriage because it enslaves women, and everybody is telling you women need men the way a fish needs a bicycle, well, the boys behave more like boys than they did back before it was politically incorrect to say, "boys will be boys."
I, for one, have always owned my own home and my own car, and supported these things with my own business. As a matter of fact, my guy got rid of his place and moved into my "castle" because it was bigger. His car is 5 years older than mine. He lives in blue jeans, but I've seen him take suits on business trips, so I guess he can dress up too. Who cares? He, too, is self-employed, but I have no idea what he makes. Why? It's none of my business what he makes or what he does with it as long as he kicks in his share of our living expenses.
If you think I'm unusual, you've just got to get out more. Oh, and I'm ten years older than he is, so there goes your theory that I need him to knock down doors to impress me with how powerful he is.
Face it, all women (the normal ones, not the stupid, talentless, lazy ones) want is a guy they can live with, get along with, and who shares their ideas and goals. Great sex is a big plus too. You totally missed that one. While that alone cannot make up for other incompatibilities, it does go a long way towards softening up the rough edges of daily life. Try it. I wish you better luck in your quest.
Editor: As the average income in America is about $26,000 a year, you are, by definition, unusual.As for being clueless, I would note two things: First, I know a lot of very nice women...over 40, and several nice women over 35. Second, while I may be clueless about women, I know a lot about how most men experience women's behaviors, and unless you're going to say men's experiences don't count (in which case, we would say women's don't, either), then you're in no position to judge, wouldn't you agree?
My sixteen year old son suicided two years ago. I am seeing a therapist who suspects my son was abused - in fact he is talking of ritual abuse. Prior to this I have never heard of such a thing and so I've been trying to look at the issues particularly regarding false memory. I have therefor found your story helpful.
How does one start to unravel what has happened to your dead son? If this is going on it needs to be stopped. When I say "if" I mean ritual abuse on an organized scale. It should go without saying that all abuse needs to end.
I wish none of this happened to you but you sure sound fine now.
I followed the advise of those organizations and contacted the lawyers they recommended. Those lawyers, universally, told me I had been married "too long." They said Colorado's courts would assess me with "spousal support" (the PC word for alimony) and that I would, essentially, be broke and in danger of going to jail if I failed to make those payments. Since part of my goal in wanting to leave my life would also be to restart my "career" in a field that pays less but has some personal reward, the divorce lost its purpose.
So for the last 5 years, I've been taking anti-depressants and sleeping pills, in an effort to dull the pain of my captive life. I stayed with my wife while my daughters were young because lawyers told me that I would lose them in a divorce and my "visitation rights" would be worth no more than the paper they were scrawled on. My reward for being a responsible father is slave status for the last portion of my life.
I'm doing my best to shorten that portion. Two years ago, I was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate and the doctor recommended a biopsy. I ignored that advice. Last year, his recommendation changed to a demand, I changed doctors. I'm in pain and bleeding a lot now, so I suspect I've passed the point where surgery or chemo or radiation would do any more than add to a hospital's bank balance. I don't have the will to live that would allow me to even consider those options. I'm 48, I have lived long enough.
I don't want my wife to profit from having made my life a living hell. I'm living in Minnesota now and I don't know the "laws" here well enough to create a will that would keep her from that reward. I have a company provided life insurance policy and about $100,000 in assets. I've only been with the company for 4 months, so the insurance won't be a serious problem. The assets are. I'd like to contribute significant amounts to the fight for men's rights, but from my own experience I'm not convinced there are legitimate organizations to contribute to. Suggestions?
If you are suggesting that voting for me is the same as "voting male," I think you are mistaken. Willy Clinton is male, but anti-male. How would men learn which candidates are pro-male?
Editor: If your wife is really that bad, find a way to pass it on directly to your kids.
Specifically, I am looking for 2 things. The first is regarding the importance of a father having the primary residential custody of the son. My research has yielded several good studies and articles about "no father" vs. "2 parent households" children and the effects thereof. However, I have not been able to find one that more or less says that, for a son, its better to be with a good dad, all things held equal. I am fortunate that the judge wrote in her ruling at the initial hearing that "all parties involved, including the court, agree that the defendant has a special relationship with his son."
The second would be regarding the importance of a child living in a home vs. an apartment (his mom took him out of the residence). I would think there is an issue there about being moved around a lot. This was one of the things brought up and stressed at the court mandated seminar I attended about children of divorced parents.
Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
The Toronto Star reporter Caroline Mallen recently wrote an article about a spousal murder-suicide and made the following needless, sexually derogatory comment.
"Her name (the victim Natalie Pawluch) joins the list of Canadian women killed at the hands of men."If the Toronto Star is willing to publish such uncalled-for sexually discriminatory comments, they had better consider publication of the equally despicable list of Canadian men killed at the hands of women. And how about the list of Canadian women saved at the hands of men (firefighters, military, and decent citizens).
Sexual discrimination is in this modern day is not a single gender affliction, it is truly an equal opportunity employer. Unfortunately, the reporting by the Toronto Star joins the list of those publications exhibiting ignorant, sexually discriminatory comments.
FYI: Male bashing is no longer socially acceptable.
Example: 2 individuals with exactly the same job, rank, pay and time in service. One female and one male. These may seem low for the military in your opinion but for the Navy here are the physical requirements. Maximum allowed time or minimum number of repetitions for ages 20-29:
| Event | Male | Female |
| Run 1.5 miles | 13:45 minutes | 16:45 minutes |
| Pushups | 29 | 11 |
| Situps | 40 | 29 |
| Max bodyfat % measured by tape | 22% | 30% |
Now federal law mandates and provides penalties for any employer to discriminate job qualifiers based upon sex but clearly it is OK for the US military to do so. Why?
In their headlong race to avail women the same opportunities as men, here clearly they are indicating that women are inferior to men in physical ability. While this may be to a large percentage accurate to the real world, when it is made a requirement for a job and it differs based on sex it is illegal.
Somehow this just slips by the media when of course harassment charges are flying about the military. Any failure of the physical requirements in any category places the individual into a bad situation. They lose evaluation points in the categories of military bearing and approval for retention in service. If any individual fails 3 times in a four year period (beginning with the 1st fail) they are administratively (fired) separated from service.
In the above example a male could achieve an outstanding physical fitness score by the female standard and still fail under the male standard. Yet the job is identical for male and female.
The only explanation I can afford to this is some sort of half baked idea to compensate women for the years in which they were forbidden from doing many jobs in the military. Great in thought, horrible and illegal in practice. Of course somehow the US military is exempt from following federal law. The only exception to the law being if a job has a specific physical requirement, even then, any applicant meeting the requirement be they female or male are equal under the law for employment.
Note: Please withhold my name if you publish this and use the synonym ARTM instead. For although I am sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I am not afforded all the rights under the Constitution against those same enemies foreign or domestic from repercussions that can be bastardized into any explanation deemed necessary against my opinion. Instead the military is force fed a Pseudo Bill of Rights called the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
What is discouraging to me is why everyone can't see these issues in such clear perspective.
Editor: You don't get to America, much, do you.
I was brought into the V-P's office and told I was fired. No interview for my side, no evidence was shown to me, I was not told what it was I allegedly said, to whom it was said to or where this occurred.
She did say it had occurred the day before and surely I knew what it was I had said. After I repeatedly told her that I had no idea what she was talking about, she said I had made this woman "uncomfortable." I was stunned and did not put up much of a fight at the time. But now I am furious and pissed and am seeking advice for legal action against this unjust and unfair termination.
I am now unemployed and have a black mark on my work record. The thought that I could be fired because someone told the VP I made them uncomfortable is ridiculous. No investigation, just "you're fired." Any advice on resources for those of us unjustly abused by this policy? Thanks for the assistance!
Editor: Years ago, there were virtually no resources or assistance for any victims of sexual harassment (male or female). Now, women have many options, men have few.I'm no lawyer, and I can't give legal advice, but from experience I have learned a few things.
First, you need to know if you live and work in a "hire at will, fire at will" state (like Washington state, where I live). If so, then your options are further limited because, short of violating your civil rights under Title VII, or violating a union contract, your employer can get away with just about anything that doesn't break any criminal laws.
Second, you need to determine what kind of complaint you would bring against your employer. In this case, it sounds like you might be able to claim you were treated differently than a similarly situated female employee would have been treated. Hence, your complaint would be sex discrimination.
If that is the case, my best suggestion would be to immediately file a complaint with the EEOC, but waive your right to an investigation. Here in the Seattle area, the local office of the EEOC seems to side with certain employers regardless of the merit of the case or sex of the complainant. Since all EEOC cases conclude with permission to file suit in Federal court regardless of the outcome, to request an investigation from the Seattle office is to automatically invite the prejudice of an unfavorable finding.
Waive your right to an investigation, and as I understand it you should receive permission to file in Federal court straight away.
What we really need is a space in which men and women can meet. My test of the ultimate worth of a movement is this: could I, in good conscience and with a reasonable hope of success, persuade my wife to join it?
Eternal opposition breeds only eternal opposition. What we need is a better place that will draw all strength away from the extreme positions. So far, I have seen in your pages only attacks on feminists (or defences against them), and nothing to show that mutually fulfilling ties between men and women, on a personal or on a social level, are possible or desirable.
If you have anything like that, please point me toward it. Of course, I am assuming that some form of cooperation between men and women IS both possible and desirable--and this, perhaps, is rash. Vote for men? I'd like to vote for people -- but no one seems to want to be one anymore.
Editor: Our sibling publication, The Equalitarian, provided precisely such a forum. Unfortunately, when pop feminist members of both the local and national media here in the U.S. banded together to crucify me, I had to suspend hardcopy publication of both The Backlash! and The Equalitarian.During the almost two years since, I have had barely sufficient resources to move The Backlash! onto the web. For that reason, I have undertaken to change the nature of this site sufficiently to invite such dialogue. Now, it's up to women to decide whether they prefer the stately pace of a monthly forum, the free-for-all in newsgroups like alt.feminism, soc.men and soc.women, or the cloistered cliques of female-only sites where, like Victorian Ladies, they can sniff and cluck over tea about how restless the natives seem to be getting, never thinking of negotiating, settling nothing, inviting a real backlash.
I have not given up yet. Your page has given me a renewed outlook and hope. I have three sons, and believe to the core of my being that the best support I can give them is to help eliminate unfairness in this country's laws regarding men and fathers. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help further this cause.
I guess I could sit here and complain about an unfair justice system but I have found the truth is usually somewhere in the middle so I won't.
Two years later he quit his job, moved 1000 miles away and went on welfare. Now with this new "Act" I am expected to pay $600 dollars a month and still afford to go and see my children every couple of months (I am paid 1600 a month net).
I am beside myself. Is there any thing I can do. With having to pay this much, I am not able to look after myself, let alone have access to my children.
I am presently married (since last June) and have 2 boys from a previous marriage(I have sole physical and legal custody). I raised my boys on my own from the time they were 2&3 until last year (about 7 years). I have many obligations but I'm told this doesn't matter. This woman wants $1000.00/month plus back support. That comes to about a third of my gross.
I hope this wasn't too short but it is hard to give a 16 year synopsis.
If you can't help me do you know a lawyer who lives in the Springfield area and is competent in paternity cases. I did try the Hampden County Bar, they weren't much help. They gave me the same guy's name twice.
I am a woman, but I think it's great. I agree with everything I've read so far, and I support you for putting the men's side out there. Thanks for helping everyone out like this.
Editor: Contact Victor Smith.
Additionally, we are also in a Chicago rock band called Backlash. That is how I ran across your page. I was wondering if you would be interested in selling your domain name. I have researched other names which are available, and backlash.org, which may be more appropriate for your purpose, is available. We would be willing to maintain a link to your page. We are proceeding registration with a different name, but if you are interested in working out a deal, I can halt as nothing has been confirmed yet.
Either way, let me know about referencing your page on our e-zine.
Editor: Articles about our site or subjects at out site are always welcome, but our domain name? Not for a million dollars, but I appreciate your offer.
I was raped, but then denied the assault for 3 months. Why? Probably because I was afraid of the reality of what happened. In the interim of those 3 months I had sex with my rapist. But I am not a masochist or not a victim.
I think your article shows ignorance to what rape is really about. It's people like you that give men the idea that they did nothing wrong if they have sex again.
Editor: You're right, of course, we must never acknowledge any way in which any victim contributes to his or her victimization, else we might learn something, and that's the last thing we want to do.
For example, you're claim that women only want men with money, that all women value material wealth and worldly, corporate power above all things. As a feminist, I know that I am far more concerned with an individual's ideology, character and integrity than I am with how influential they are in our twisted and Darwinian culture. I know that I have no interest in befriending anyone who is satisfied by holding petty positions of power in the very structure that has excluded and de-valued women for years.
Your unflattering and unfounded assumptions about "what women want" smacked of misogyny and are yet another example of the media-propelled lies and hatred with which women are constantly assaulted.
My suggestion to you is to read your own article and note the lack of evidence you have for your own arguments. Then I suggest that you look at yourself and question what it is in you that would drive you to write such irrational and destructive tripe.
Editor: You're right, men's experiences don't count; only women's, do.
I for one like nice guys. They're the best kind to talk to and work with.
Bottomline: I agree.
Editor: Check one of the feminist sites. I'm sure they would be happy to help you.
In 1992, the judge went back to the original temporary judgment, $4000.00 each month, and ordered him to pay an excess of $250,000.00 in child support and alimony. He was a successful chiropractor at the time of his marriage, but during his divorce, (she filed) he lost his practice through a nervous breakdown and filed for bankruptcy. He never entered the courtroom again until 1990, when I married him.
His license was suspended in 1994, he did not receive judicial review, nor was he given due process. I forgot to mention, after one year of divorce, he moved back with his family, for his ex-wife had a life threatening blood disorder. He moved in took care of her and the kids, while paying her $4000.00 a month. Shouldn't this have been taken into consideration?
The marriage was a short term marriage, and his ex-wife wants everything that is mine -- my income, property, car, to go directly to her. Isn't there a law that prohibits her from trying to get possession of my personal property?
My husbands' ex-wife's lawyer eventually became judge in this matter never recused herself, so my husband never got a fair trial, much less, he has never had a trial for his divorce.
How can I get this nightmarish ex-spouse off our back. She will not settle with us either, it has to be on her terms only. I will and neither will my husband ever have over $90,000.00 to our names, unless we win the lottery or something. What advise can you give me? Where do I turn to?
I did not bookmark the particular column I was reading therefore I cannot provide the title for you. As to telling you how I really felt about the contents, I have already done so. It is not my habit to critique the work of others, unless I find it offensive, which I did. If it is meant in jest, fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, if it was intended to put feminists in their place, honey, I have news for you, it has probably done exactly the opposite. Take it like a man - most women nowadays do. You should try it. I hope this passage has cleared up any unanswered questions you may have had.
Editor: "Take it like a man - most women nowadays do."? You said it, I didn't. :-)
The commercial lien, and the whole UCC for that matter, is by nature un-Constitutional. The UCC assumes that the subject of a lien is guilty, and puts the burden of proof on the defendant. Yes - this surely poetic justice, but it is a dangerous diversion from the true path of the Patriot, and it will most likely be a short lived one. History shows that you can't beat an established governing body at its own game. Any rules that (mistakenly) act in your favor are quickly changed (imagine that). Remember - learning to dance to the piper's tune only encourages him to play faster!
Alas, the only true solution to the woes of our Nation is to remove every thieving bastard from our government and send Washington DC in its entirety to the bottom of the ocean! But I can't imagine the bulk of the population being able to pull themselves away from Oprah long enough to contest a traffic ticket, let alone bring forth a revolution! Besides, the bulk of the population believes that all is well, and "freedom" and "personal liberty" is being allowed to vote for the political puppet of their choice, and patriotism is paying their fair share of taxes! So, in the mean time, all we can do is try to spread the word, educate our children, try to convince our spouses and extended family that we're not insane, and hope for break!
Editor: As a member of the Cowlitz Indian tribe, I'm in a dandy position to benefit from all the modern negative stereotypes about white men, but I don't believe in living a lie.A hundred years? I know people who are older than that. Historically, women have won more rights and privileges in America during the past 100 years than during the previous several millennia in Africa, Asia and Europe.
Certainly the Constitution was written by white men. Men who were, for their day, far more enlightened than most others of their time -- male or female. Consequently, they drew up a document that, in conjunction with the industrial revolution, created the kind of political and economic freedom necessary to women's liberation.
Moreover, most of the women's liberation movement has, from the very start, been underwritten and orchestrated behind the scenes by white men. Susan B. Anthony was sponsored by a white man -- the man behind Niagara Falls. A man founded and owns Ms. magazine (a fact that, from time to time, really pisses off the women everybody thinks run the magazine -- when they go too far trying to run the magazine into the ground and he has to rein them in or let the magazine go bankrupt).
Men have always been prominent behind the scenes in the women's movement. It's one of the feminists' great secrets.
It's simply sophomoric to think you are in a position to wisely judge the social contracts of the past. Better to learn what lessons history teaches and then work to make today and tomorrow better and brighter, wouldn't you agree?
In one of the lists of reasons to vote male is a statement that the Christian religion, virtually all of the Christian churches, are 2/3 female. Christianity is now and always been FOR women, even thought much of the work is done by men.
I am not a Christian. Many men in the US are NOT Christian. Please explain how one might "vote male" in the current election without voting Christian. The platform of the Republican Party includes legislating Christian religion (Christian moral teachings) by force of law. The Republican platform advocated taking my freedom away and cramming their religion down my throat and the throat of my family.
How, prey tell, can I "vote male" without voting against my religion?
How did you come to equate voting Christian with voting male, when Christian is a predominately female religion according to your own statements?????!!!
Waiting for an answer?
All material is the copyright property of the author and may not be reproduced in any manner without specific permission.
Editor: If you send email to the editor, you better tell me if you don't want it published, otherwise, as the several notices scattered throughout my site state, I might publish it.That noted, the short answer to your question is, use your noodle. (Trans.: American slang for "brain.") Presumably, whatever deity you worship gave you one, and if all that is required to throw you into a tizzy is disagreement over one or a few points, then go join the pop feminists where you'll do us some good.
The long answer can be found in my What it means to me article.
Personally, I might suggest that you aren't that far from MacKinnon: some of what you say is right on target, and some of it is pretty off base. That's a mixed blessing, but this is definitely a compliment: at least you're stirring some desperately needed thought, where "I just don't understand" has been the "enlightened perspective" for far too long.
Re: your discussion of Affirmative Action: I believe it is obvious that Affirmative Action was phrased in a manner that was needlessly tied to specific demographic groups. However, I think it is/was short sighted to push for an end to affirmative action without concomitantly pushing for something better, that would be Put In Place at the same time Affirmative Action (as we've known it - the new thing might have the same name or a different name, so long as what's behind it is improved) was ended.
That is, AA was both good and bad. There are still cases of harassment brought against the people who were served by AA, and AA was phrased in a way that would make it dead weight, if not quite harmful, one day.
Editor: As someone who could take advantage of AA (I think I've mentioned only about a hundred times that I'm a member of the Cowlitz Indian tribe), I have always been insulted by the idea that, as long as equal employment opportunity laws are enforced, anybody would even consider hiring or promoting me over other, more qualified individuals.People should still be granted recourse against harassment, and that recourse should be stated in a pretty color-blind and gender-blind manner (though granted, to some "If you do not see my color, then you do not see me!"). The law should be independent of culture and religion and gender to the extent feasible, as should attempts to balance power between cultures and religions and gender.I work hard, I have copies of production reports and performance reviews from various employers to prove it, and anyone who would stoop to using AA to gain advancement or advantage ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Give me strong unions and stringent enforcement of eeo laws, but AA is a load of dung smuggled in under cover of the goodwill generated by great men like Martin Luther King Jr., and it is crawling with lousy victim-hoods who prey on the sympathy of others.
Editor: Harassment is covered under EEO, not AA.IMO, placing yourself against AA is to put yourself against short-term progress at the same time you consider long-term progress.
Note well: now that AA is dead to the world, the constitutionality of overturning AA is being questioned, and rightfully so! Something Very important was lost, at the same time something important was gained. There should have been 1000's of times more effort put into preserving the good aspects.
Why submit your article(s) to Playboy and Penthouse? I'd call Playboy a questionable forum, but Penthouse strikes me as extremely inappropriate. Why not submit it to Ms., or Utne Reader? Note well: I haven't said that Playboy or Penthouse should be made illegal (though I have Serious doubts about Penthouse).
Editor: A few years ago, at the very beginning of Ms' "non-commercial" phase, I sent in a letter to the editor suggesting cloning would render most of the pro-life argument against abortion choice irrelevant. (Obviously, this was some time ago.) An editor at Ms. called to ask "what's cloning," and then she said they might run my letter, but probably not because they didn't like publishing material written by men. As for Utne, I've sent them plenty of material. They never responded. Why Playboy or Penthouse? Both are widely read by men, both are good enough for Warren Farrell and Betty Friedan, so why not?With regard to:
"There is a time for hostility, a time for anger, a time to march, and a time to cry. But when the major ideological disputes are resolved, it's time to put away the strategies, tactics and emotions of confrontation and walk together down the avenues of cooperation.IMO, the major ideological disputes are not resolved. In fact, I'd say far from it.
Editor: Okay, write any article about which major ideological disputes you feel are unresolved so I can publish it. Let's get some dialogue going, here.Even if they were, there are those (myself included) who view confrontation as a potentially Very positive thing. Indeed, I find people who can "only really communicate through humor" rather frightening. Why can't people just Say what they Think, and Hear what others Think, without flying off the handle?
Granted, there is a correlation between action and word, but when people attempt to shut down communication, that hinders my ability to:
Conversely and perversely, confrontation often provides more immediate emotional satisfaction.IMO, this is because people (at least some people, certainly I do) have a fundamental need for Communication that is Direct and Clear and Unequivocal.
Editor: Somebody get this person a dictionary; confrontation has at least four definitions, each for a different context. Either you're ignorant of this, or being argumentative by playing word games. Word games are for intellectual pipsqueaks who would rather masturbate than copulate. Get yourself a dictionary, or go play with yourself.With regard to "why should whites today be punished for the sins of whites of the past?", I believe you have a responsibility to consider: "why should whites today benefit from the sins of whites of the past?"
That is, if some other demographic group, let's call it "D", decides to go on a killing rampage, stomping out all white people it can find, and then two generations from now suddenly stops, after white folk have been pressed out onto an evolutionary limb (socially speaking), should white folk just "live and let live," and allow D's to go on in peace?
Perhaps, but it wouldn't be easy, would it?
Editor: How many generations do you go back before you forgive debts? One? Ten? One thousand? Go back far enough, you'll find whites oppressing "D," and "D" oppressing whites, and pretty soon it turns into a chicken and egg question.Once, in RAPP (an excellent forum for issue raising!), we did a thought experiment. We divided ourselves into two groups of aliens on another planet, A's and B's. A's were the dominant culture. The A's were told to do every horrible thing they could think of, to subject B's (or rather, to make a list of what they would do, this was a thought experiment only!).Regardless, others have asked me the same question, and I've always enjoyed that because, when you get right down to it, I, and a few thousand other "Fish Eating Indians of the Washington (state) Coast," are the legitimate owners of the Washington state peninsula. It's a fact. In 1855, territorial governor Isaac Stephens attempted to negotiate a resettlement and peace treaty with elders of my and other tribes, but failed on most counts. So, he simply chose to ignore us, and white squatters just moved in.
By your (implied) logic, either everybody (White, Asian, Black, etc.) who lives on the peninsula should acknowledge our ownership and either pay us rent or move out and let us reassume ownership, or the US government should make reparations into perpetuity. Hey, the legal convolutions of CFR 25 notwithstanding, it's a pretty clear cut case.
Fortunately for the hundreds of thousands of non-Indians who live there, American Indians are generally fair and reasonable. We ask that our tribes be recognized, that we be free from the ongoing harassment of the BIA, and that such settlements as were negotiated (either through treaty or executive order) be honored. Beyond that, we ask that our reservations and traditions be respected, and that we are allowed to live and let live.
Later, it was indicated Quite Truthfully, that everything the A's had listed, was something white folks had done to black folks, at some point in history. More generally, it was something many arbitrary A's had done to numerous arbitrary B's over the course of time.
BTW, if there was ever a breeding ground for black supremacists, it would have been RAPP in Cincinnati - other minorities were not well represented, it was mostly white and black folk. But there just wasn't anything that would really count as black supremacy - the closest thing was a contingent of black separatists - who got along surprisingly well with the white separatists, I might add. That is, there was something of a split between "separatists of both camps" and "why can't we all just get along", with me sitting somewhere in the middle.
Your comments on social cycles, at the beginning of Cycles of Bigotry were excellent. It was later in the article that I become quite bothered.
As an interesting lead into further study of cycles, you might (if you haven't already!) look into religion and power relations between the sexes. Please consider: http://nis.acs.uci.edu/~strombrg/religion.html. I expect to expand on this page over time (I do have a day job, though!), but I do not expect it to remain at this URL.
Also, Chalice and the Blade was excellent on cycles. I hope to revisit When God Was a Woman one day soon.
Finally, consider the implications of the power that would have been enjoyed by women, prior to the time when men were realized to have any part in procreation.
Editor: Been there, done that -- see my remarks regarding the Neolithic revolution in my chapter on Feminism.Women would have been the natural source of "all creation of human life", being solely responsible for children. They could raise children to believe what they wanted. And they would be the natural leaders in a religion surrounding "mother earth."
Consider the apparent power shift that came with discussion of a horrible 'nether world' buried deep within what was once an object of worship (for most religions?), and shifting to sun worship, sword worship, "graven image" worship, and finally "worship of an ethical male" born to a woman who was impregnated without "base sex" by an 100% ethical, loving (but vindictive, jealous) male deity - the "One True Deity".
Editor: Not to mention giving up that lovely nomadic lifestyle for the dreary villages, marketplaces, urban centers, indoor plumbing, agriculture, beer, empire dresses, the sciences, the professions, the list of atrocities just goes on and on.It sounds considerably like an extreme overreaction to a severe power imbalance that arose from simple ignorance, no?
Editor: Someone's ignorance, anyway.
I had always known in my heart that this subject was a little one sided and treated unfairly, so I am glad to know that I was not wrong.
Thank you again for opening my eyes, I think my instructor will be surprised when he sees my paper.
Editor: Wish I did. I'd let her know she can find The Backlash here, now. Maybe I should send her snail mail. Hard copy? Yuck!
Yes, Gloria Steinem's political reputation is unparalleled. She is known around the world for the work she has done. Can you even imagine the amount of respect that people (both male and female) have for her?
I was also captivated by your statement about Steinem basically is attacking Freud's character in her article about the fictitious Phyllis. I thought it very commendable of you not to comment on your own character attacks aimed at Steinem. Don't worry; I don't think anyone caught them.
My final compliment is on the great list you've compiled with all of the people who have criticized Freud. You've even ranked yourself in there. But where do you fit in? Are you closer to those scatter-brained feminists or the legitimate scholars?? I didn't see a category for ignorant men. Is that where you are?
Strange, isn't it? You get to publish your own writing, attain some sort of fame over the Internet, have your e-mail address public, and is it worth it? Couldn't you just look in the mirror to see your inadequacies or did you really want me to tell you?
Thanks for the article; it made my day.
Are you saying that for centuries women have been in some way creating problems in order to get the men to engage in war in order to advance their social status? I don't think that women had much to say about when or why men went to war, but only because men wouldn't hear of such a thing.
Editor: As Reay Tannahill notes in "Sex in History," we cannot judge the dynamics of the male-female relationships of even as recently as a few hundred years ago. To study the past blind to our own biases is to learn little and impose much.I don't think it's fair of you to say that women should be thankful that men went to war either.The "virgin birth" myth epitomizes this. Throughout the middle east, it was common for the "law" to make female fornication punishable by death. (Fornicators were, by definition, single, not married.) This is harsh by any standard, and, by our modern standards, sexist, as well. However, "virgin births" were also common. (The "virgin Mary" was hardly unique.) The religious explanation, of course, was that these births were miraculous; it should be obvious, however, that in small, close-knit communities comprised of a few or several extended families, affectionate and/or wise elders will find ways to bend the rules, otherwise everybody will, from time to time, get in a lot of trouble. (This is why the US legal system had so much trouble with the banishment of the two Tlinget youths as punishment a few years back, and everyone went whacko when it was revealed the two youths had not been left entirely alone, but were visited and helped every now and then -- tribal law can sometimes appear harsh, but retribution is seldom the purpose. The purpose of the law should, among other things, be to help individuals be members of the community, a foreign concept to a culture based on retribution.)
So, here you are, a village elder, and 14-yo Lucy is pregnant. Everybody pretty much knows (hard to keep a secret in a small community) that she and young Jeb have been playing around, and the law says she's gotta die by stoning, but everybody loves her. Whatcha gonna do? From our modern perspective, we naturally assume she dies, and oh, weren't those patriarchal sexist louts awful back then, thank goodness for our more enlightened attitudes today. But then, the elder says, "The gods have blessed the virgin with a child; let us rejoice!"
Naturally, if young Jeb is not eligible to wed, yet, she gets married off to some older guy, and her child, rather than a shameful "bastard," is treated with great respect.
What we know objectively is that, throughout history, few individuals of either sex had much power. We also know that for most of human history most people lived in extended families where women had as much power ("say," influence, authority, etc.) as men.
Editor: I just reread that section, and no where do I say that. However, at least one feminist author comes very close to saying that: "In fact, feminists are forced to welcome war as their only chance." - Shulamith Firestone, "The Dialectic of Sex"If it wasn't your intention to get this type of message across, then I suggest you re-word your commentary.
Editor: During my next rewrite, I shall certainly reword it, to include Firestone's comments, and more.
Being female has worked for me all my life. I discovered early in life that males and females are different. The older I get, the more distinct those differences become.
More feminists/lesbians just leaves more men for us real women!
It shows why your states CS guidelines are Illegal, immoral and unconstitutional.
Ninety-eight percent of men are never convicted of violent crimes this paper reads. Only one out of every eight rapes is reported, much less solved. Is the author aware that a woman is raped every second? One woman every second.
Editor: If you were to include the entire world, the claim of "one woman every second" might be correct; but in the US, it's nothing more than pop feminist hate propaganda.There are good and bad within any group, but white Christian men are still allowed the best job opportunities.
Editor: Like garbage truck driver? A white Christian friend is nearing the point of having to retire from his profession. No, he will still have to find employment, but as a professional carpenter, at age 43 the joints in his shoulders and elbows are all but shot. There's a reason why most carpenters, and other construction laborers, are men -- it's dirty, dangerous, hard labor, and most women can't handle it.Sexism is alive in both sexes, but much more commonly presented against women.
Editor: When everybody "knows" something is true is the time to question it. Right now, everybody "knows" women are the primary victims of sexism, and we have centuries of documentation to prove it. But isn't it interesting how, with the exception of some anecdotal evidence and a very few notable examples here and there, most of the evidence to prove this assertion is at least 20 years out of date?It is a statistical fact that every woman will face sexual harassment at least three times during her life.
Editor: By feminist definition, virtually every woman is guilty of sexually harassing men, and every man will face sexual harassment on a daily basis.Again, some points are valid and deserve to be heard, but for the most part this article is the obnoxious whining of a man who feels left out for some reason. May I suggest, no I do suggest that the author gets over himself and finds a more worthy cause. This kind of ranting is pathetic.
An open-minded, unprejudiced Atheist white woman
Editor: You don't specify any particular example of violence or arrogance. Projecting, are we?
Editor: Evidently not smart enough to recognize the difference between a rant and hyperbole. The quote was from PC Seldom's "Network for the Elimination of Vaginally Elitist Rabble," and a note for the humor-impaired -- it's a joke.
"Pop-feminists dismiss the idea sexual passion can be a motive for rape. They believe it is impossible for any woman to provoke an overpowering libidinal response in some men."Are you kidding me? I have talked to several women about their sleazy dress habits. They admit that when they wear sexy pantyhose and miniskirts around us that they are begging for it!!
I say give them what they are asking for...what they deserve!!!
"What if the tables were turned? There are many colognes for men, for example, manufacturers claim are laced with the male pheromone that will 'put women in the mood.'"We men should be so lucky!!!!
What are some of the biggest concerns that the mother's have in this regard? What is the percentage of father's earning their right to the legal custody of their children? What needs to happen for fathers to increase the chances of their case being won?
I understand that the percentages are already increasing, but what needs to be done to make this an easier battle to win? I am doing research for a paper for school, but this is also a personal interest, for I may be involved in helping someone look into his rights for his daughter's custody. Thank you for anything you can send.
I have grown so tired of listening to male-bashing feminists. Apparently there are two sets of rules, theirs (whatever is convenient) and ours (ever-changing). I'll share a story with you that has bothered me for years.
A young man (20-21) and his girl get married. A couple of years go by and she becomes pregnant. He is ecstatic, he was glowing. About two weeks before the baby is born she tells this poor guy that there is a chance that the baby is not his. The couple is white, and the baby is born black (obviously he is not the father). He decides to stay with her and help her. The natural father never quite left the picture, and this innocent young man calls it quits. The courts rule that he must pay support until the child is 18, because the child was born during wedlock.
I just wonder if roles were reversed how that story would go.
I know of another case where the father was going for custody of his son, who was 12 at the time when his ex-wife informed him that the boy was not his. This man and his son were forced to take blood tests, which came back negative. The courts did not make her pay back any support. That is child abuse! She knew all along. She should be in prison for what she has put her son through and what she has done to her ex-husband. Instead she now prevents this man and his son (only father he has known) from seeing each other.
I personally was in a committed relationship with a women for 5 years. She had a son from a previous relationship. When I entered the picture he was 8 and had very, very limited contact with his father. He and I enjoyed a very special relationship. She constantly bad mouthed the boys father, and made it difficult for him to see/contact his son. He paid support religiously. After several heated discussions she stopped the bad mouthing (in front of me). He is 16 now. His mother and I have split and each went our separate ways. She decided to move on before bothering to let me in on it, still I have no grudge, and have been nothing less than understanding and friendly. She refuses to let me have contact with her son. I would think that she would appreciate a man staying in her sons life. He calls me when he can and I go to his football games and sit in the back. He knows I am there and we usually Find a way to signal each other. I know that it means a lot to him that I haven't abandon him.
Sorry about going on, I've just never found an outlet before. Where are fathers rights? Our importance to the family has been legislated away.
I have the voting & spending records of the 103 congress, and there was a shocking story that has not been told. Out of the 435 House members 48 were females, they on average voted for TWICE as much spending as the male house members did as a whole.. Huummm...
Keep up the good work..
These issues include, but are not limited to: reverse discrimination, unfair divorce laws, domestic violence and sexual harassment (to include threats of defamation and court costs via sexual harassment charges).
Beyond this, I am looking for original thought on any issue that touches on the position of white men in this society - cultural, legal, economic or otherwise - and helps to question popular bias.
I do not support hate groups. I am looking for original thought, scholarship, networking, and personal experiences.
Can you help me?
I had never named the emotion I felt when I heard phrases like "If men could get pregnant ...". Mr. Balder brought real clarity to a subject that I had always overlooked. Not that I was defenseless. When someone said "If men could get pregnant ..." I reminded them that if men could get pregnant, women would not exist. After all, if, a million years ago, the provider and protector could also be the birth-giver, then women would have been superfluous. Maybe women should be less critical of, and more grateful for, the men in their lives.
Editor: The battle cry of the bigot -- "If it's my problem everyone should weep, if it's my chosen devil's problem, tough."There's no denying that women have always had fight for want we have and want and probably always will have to fight just because we live in a patriarchal society. The world revolves around men and for you to pick out things like verbal abuse in school to get sympathy for your gender is pathetic.
Editor: I keep hearing that, and, from a female perspective, it makes sense. However, in the experience of most men, the world revolves around women. We can acknowledge that both perspectives are valid, and cooperate to reconcile them, or, like the pop feminists, blindly ignore the other and insist there's only one truth: mine. I prefer cooperation. What about you?As far as the child molestation, anyone, male or female who does that sort of thing to children need to be locked away in a psychiatric facility for the rest of their life.The first reference to verbal abuse I read was in Shere Hite's "Women and Love." Are you saying it's legitimate when women complain of verbal abuse, but "pathetic" when men do? Are you really that egocentric?
Editor: At least we agree on something. :-)Now that women are able to assert themselves, men feel their manhood is threatened because you are losing your control over us and you don't know how to deal with it.
Editor: I keep hearing that, too. When men try to tell women what women experience, it's sexist, but when women tell men what men experience, that's somehow different? I don't think so.We see everyday rapes, domestic violence and murder towards women which are far worse than what any man will suffer.Moreover, the primary premise of pop feminism -- that women throughout history even unto today are under the oppressive control of men -- is a load of cow dung.
Editor: It's good to know that when a man is raped, abused or murdered, he suffers less than women do.So grow up.
As long as women put themselves and other women down can we expect men to do any less? I really do not feel that there is one person in the universe that understands why I hate sexist remarks so much, even when the remark is couched as a joke.
Why do women need men so much? Is it early training? I refuse to believe it is innate. There are times when I simply can not identify with other women. I am certain I am right in opposing sexism, I would just like to have some support in this from just one other person.
Warren Farrell has exposed a side media and marriage that I never knew existed. I am living in Ottawa Canada and am frankly sick of our alternative, underground and commercial press "trashing" men. It seems that all I read explores the evils of "patriarchal" society.
I would like to know if, and where I can get a hard copy of your paper. I believe these views should be as widely available as any other source of media.
When I say that, many women become horrified, yet I DO consider myself a feminist, just not by the typical standards of today. I believe in being an independent, self-sufficient woman, etc. etc. - but I also like men - they're a pain in the rear sometimes :) but then, so are women.
In any case, I feel you can be a strong, independent woman who doesn't let people walk all over her or take any sort of physical or mental without hating men's guts! I can't stand NOW (ugh) The current feminist movement has made feminine traits in women unacceptable - we're all supposed to act and think like men. These same women, who say they want to be treated "just like men" expect special treatment when they are expected to put up with some of the same things men do. Speaking of today's feminists breaking away from the original feminist movement, I can think of one major area (I don't know what your view is on this, so I hope you don't get offended) and that's abortion. The original feminists were so against the practice, now today, it's an "enpowerment" for women. A group called "Feminists for Life" is in existence today - they believe that destroying the unborn us anything but "enpowering"
OK, I'll stop typing now. :)
Editor: Carolyn has a very nice web site at http://www.gargaro.com. Check it out.
Editor: No. Sorry.
It is very informative as to brain & behavioral differences between men & women, things that are painfully obvious to all of us uneducated and unenlightened shmoe's out here.
The feminazis have always gotten on my nerves because it boggled my mind that they got so much attention for such blatantly absurd ideas and ideology. Brain Sex goes to great lengths to document the fact that we are NOT equal by any stretch of the imagination, but our strengths/weakness balance each other. Forcing one gender to measure their success by the other's standards (feminism) is so unequal that it is laughable.
So to be an equalitarian the only solution is to somehow elevate women's natural strengths to a status equal to that of men's. Pardon my "sexism", but motherhood (which women are biologically designed for mentally & physically) should have the same status and prestige as being a CEO of a company (male strength) and believe me, in my mind it already does.
On the rights/responsibilities issue those to are inseparable no matter what issue context you talk about women's rights, abortion rights, property rights, parental rights, etc. Don't tell me "I have a right to ..." unless it's followed by "... and i accept my responsibility to...". We have too many people claiming their rights today and not nearly enough people accepting their responsibilities. Keep the good work up and broaden your horizons, for the battle of the sexes is almost won. Most young women today have seen the ignorance and futility of feminism and are looking more for balance than equality.
She has formed an organization called the National Breast Cancer Coalition. She appeared before a congressional committee, according to the blurb, and delivered the rather trite observation that if they (the government, that is) can afford billions of dollars to bail out the savings and loans then they can afford to spend "300 million to save women's lives."
The blurb went on to say that, sure enough, the Congress increased breast cancer funding from 90 million to 300 million. That's making it "everyone's problem" all right. When you consider that only 10-20% of women are likely to get it, breast cancer is not even every woman's problem. But we are all going to pay with our tax money.
The blurb mentions a figure (1.25 million or something like that) for women who have breast cancer, and of course calls it an "epidemic." Never mind that a disease that affects 1% of a population can hardly be called an epidemic. The truly galling part of all this is the way the Congress falls for all this nonsense. Prostate cancer kills nearly as many men per year as breast cancer, but I haven't heard much about that "epidemic" lately.
Prostate cancer also only gets a fraction of the research funding as breast cancer. But no one has the courage inside the government or in the medical research community to stand up and say anything about this inequity. It's interesting how the feminists latch on to Title IX in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to demand equal funding for girls' athletics, but somehow they don't seem to feel that applies when they are getting more than their share of something. (It's also interesting how when the subject is athletics feminists dismiss male athletes as "jocks" but female participation in sports leads to "increased self-esteem" and a "sense of accomplishment and fulfillment." But that's another issue.)
The truth is lung cancer kills far more women every year that breast cancer. Those 300 million bucks could surely be better spent, and save more lives, if they were spent on lung cancer research. But maybe that's the problem, that would mean men's lives would also be saved. Breast cancer is a politically favored disease, however, which makes you wonder if the feminists are concerned about saving women's lives or merely want some sort of symbol and litmus test.
The fact is 80-90% of women will NOT get breast cancer. That breast cancer has become regarded as an "epidemic" is irresponsible fear mongering of the worst sort. It serves as a political rallying point while diverting vast research funds from where they could do more good.
Once again thank you, I agree with you that the state of PA has a long way to go before men are treated fairly.
I stumbled across your web page, and found it very insightful. Thanks. My ex-boyfriend has always had the same views as you. Your information has made me consider both sides. Congrats.
Editor: My remarks in the chapter on prostitution about marriage being legalized prostitution were regarding the radical feminist perspective on marriage. In 1970, Shulamith Firestone, the prominent radical feminist author of The Dialectic of Sex, wrote that marriage is prostitution. Since then, a great many feminists have agreed with her, and much of the current efforts by pop feminist organizations are predicated on this assumption.Your comment on why should he buy the proverbial cow, if he can buy the proverbial milk, is equally warped. As most of your other comments.
Editor: My comment regarding the "proverbial cow" was in the context of an analysis of the why many women, but especially pop feminists, oppose decriminalizing prostitution.May I suggest you do some thoughtful, intelligent research on this subject, in order for you not to further disgrace the male population. It is obvious that you do not have a partner whom you've committed to share your life with because she is your best friend. It is also obvious that you do not have the wisdom to place yourself in a prostitute's position.
Editor: Another graduate of the modern American education system. May I suggest you get yourself a good dictionary and learn how to read?
Why bother disseminating one myth by creating another? Let's be grown-ups and recognize that there lots of people out there that we don't like but we can't eliminate them by alienating our friends. good luck,
Maybe you forgot to read the previous sentence or just didn't realize that Steinem used this example (the life of Freud) for her reversal because "They create empathy and are great detectors of bias, in ourselves as well as in others, for they expose injustices that seem normal and so are invisible" (24).
In case you hadn't noticed, Freud uses patriarchal control as part of his analysis. The sick thing is that he is still highly upheld in the psychiatric field today. By flip-flopping things, Steinem shows just how terrible this stuff is. It's not so applicable when men were the ones suffering from neurosis, penis anxiety, and clitoris & womb envy is it? Next time you want to review something, maybe you should look a little deeper into the text.
Editor: Personally, I've always felt Freud was a fruitcake, and my response (as opposed to the author of that article) to Steinem's essay was, "Thirty years ago, this would have been cutting edge; now, it's just gratuitous."There was a time when Steinem had something interesting to say. Today, she's about as relevant as a Chuck Norris movie about shooting up the jungle in Vietnam.
It is amazing that this tramp can sc**w around with any Tom, Dick, and Harry. Be unfaithful and break her marriage vows. Then we the UK tax payers have to reward her by paying her millions to divorce her husband. Now she gets treated like a f*****g hero all over the world.
The article says that Hollywood is to pay her 20 million dollars to become a daytime US chat show host. The companies are King World, makers of the Oprah Winfrey Show; ABC, the television network, and subsidiaries of Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal and Paramount.
In a recent telephone survey conducted by the UK Sun Newspaper (not known for its subtlety) readers given the choice of a date with Fergie, and a date with a goat, chose 9 out of 10 in favour of the goat. Some might say that she is seriously disliked in the UK. Which I guess is why you guys are getting the pleasure of her.
I just wonder if a little phoning campaign directed at the Studios might have some effect, because if ever there was a more deserving target this would be it.
I don't know what the point is that I'm trying to make, other than that I relate and wish you well.
Balance is the operative word, I think. But we men have faced a black and white world of backlash. On one hand are those men who, in my opinion have lain down and allowed all of the accusations to be heaped upon them with no reproof. On the other hand, there are the men who pick up their club where they left it in the seventies and grab there women by the hair and drag them back to the cave.
We are not necessarily villains, nor are we gods. We all must struggle to find balance and to treat each other fairly.
Thanks again for the article. It meant a lot to me.
My case is maybe unique. I'm 59, soon-to-be ex-wife is 54. We married in June '94 separated (she deserted me and my son (not her, his mother is dead) in Nov. '95. I was diagnosed with pancreatic and liver cancer the end of Dec. 95. (The same kind my wife died of) I asked "wife" to return which she did, until Mar. 96 where she deserted again.
There is no abuse claimed by her, merely "irreconcilable differences".
My cancer apparently is stabilized, unlike my other wife's. She died after 2 months of diagnosis. Of course, this is what came to my mind immediately after my diagnosis, and the reason why I asked her to return.
I've been waiting until now, middle of Dec. for a divorce. Her lawyer has been delaying the court date. New court date is January 7, 1997. I am very anxious for the divorce to be granted, due to obvious reasons -- inheritance, etc. The divorce is contested because this woman wants alimony. Her original lawyer (from Nov.) advised that she wouldn't get alimony, so she fired her (woman lawyer) and hired a new one. Reason she thinks she is entitled to alimony is that she quit a job to return when I asked her to. She had been working at the job for 1 day!
Any suggestions? Case is to be heard in Camden County, Missouri.
I'm afraid you're a little out of your league! To go into detail of how unfounded your every so called "point" is on this homepage would waste hours upon hours of my time. Put your energy to better use, and learn some real facts about what you're attempting to talk about.
Stop breeding misconceptions with your pop-culture misogynistic crap. There's enough of that out there already. I (unlike you) am not attempting to call myself an expert on feminism; but I at least know that no one, female or male, feminist or "not," ever declared war! The paranoia!!
Editor: Marilyn French disagrees. See her 1992 book, "The War Against Women."Feminism is certainly not about "men versus women," and if people like you bothered to do their research instead of doing what any clown can do and post any old piece of shit on the Web they would realize that long before they made a first class ass out of themselves. If you really want to talk about the subject at hand, first go read a book!
Editor: You didn't read my footnotes? Since writing my first two books, I've read and analyzed dozens more feminist books, debated Gloria Allred, Jill Nelson, and many other feminist "experts" on radio and TV, and have yet to find one who could ultimately do more than end up yelling to cover up her own lies and ignorance.You have a long way to go: I would suggest Donovan's Feminist Theories to start.
As well we have already received and uploaded a response to Connell from historian JA Hammerton. I would be very interested in receiving feedback on these articles from scholars and interested persons working in the area of masculinity studies.
In 1988 I left my family and became clean and sober. At that time I owned a moderately successful business, was married with 4 children.
Soon after I began to feel extremely depressed. Depression had always been a part of my life until I found alcohol so it really wasn't a new experience.
I became active in Alcoholic's Anonymous and entered psychotherapy to work on "childhood issues". It took 8 years to finally figure out that I have a chemical imbalance and that medication is what I should have started this process with in the first place. In the meantime, my business failed, my ex-wife took my kids and moved to New York(both in 1993). I became even more depressed. At this point I was in the process of discovering that I thrived on being a good parent and was learning about who I was and why. Until my business failed I paid, on time every time, $3770.00 per month for support and maintenance. As my depression worsened and my business failed I became unable to pay the required amount of support.
Over the next three years I was able to get my support modified down to $1266.00 per month but, because of my condition, found it impossible to even keep up with that. My ex-wife doesn't believe that depression is the cause and that I am a typical "dead beat dad". My ex has refused to send the kids out for visitation so I haven't seen them in a year and a half. I can't afford to sue her for contempt and I am told that it would be hard to enforce anyway.
Recently I went to court and was ordered to pay at least $700.00 per month or do jail time. I couldn't afford an attorney so I had to get a public defender.
Now my medication is beginning to make a lot of difference and I am feeling optimistic again though I believe it will be some time before I am able to keep up with my obligation of $1266.00 per month.
Clinical depression is becoming more and more recognized as a legitimate disorder but I believe, for the most part, it is still very misunderstood. Ironically, when you add going out of business and losing a family to this already bewildering chemical imbalance things got progressively worse for awhile.
I love my kids and I want to provide for them, and I don't want to be forgotten by society as an important part of their lives because I have a legitimate medical condition. I have a great rapport with all of my kids but my ex never passes up an opportunity to undermine what little relationship we have left.
It feels good to vent. Thanks for being there.
The issue at large is that we are at the point where equality and fairness of treatment by society, government and sometimes the law is at risk. Men are slowly but surely squeezed out to the point of being treated unfairly in all fronts, especially in politics and public media.
Most men are like me who do not like to see a male dominant society. But they want fairness for both sexes. The grant for breast cancer research is five times that for prostate cancer which kills about the same number of men every year as breast cancer kills women. Is a men's life less valuable than a women's?
If there is a case of unfairness to men then it is men that are to be blamed to have let it happen. We must fight for our rights and fight for our share of fair treatment. They are not delivered to us on silver plates. Women may be treated unfairly in other parts of the world so they must fight for their rights. But in North America, it is men's turn to wake up to the situation of being treated unfairly and fight back.
I am a beginner in this area. But I am determined to do something about it. Can you please let me know if you know of any men's rights groups in the US and in Canada which I can contact to chip in my support. Only when we gain political power can we start to talk about equality! We can afford to wait until Thelmas and Louises of this country start to blast us into pieces emotionally, politically and financially.
What the writer of the article pointed out is undoubtedly, in my mind, the irrefutable truth - the myth of testosterone as a hormone of aggression. The greatest mistake the human race has ever made is to allocate the characteristics of masculinity with aggression and femininity with passivity. It disgusts me, I abhor it, and I believe my greatest God-ordained mission on this Earth is to destroy it, because it destroys us as people.
Editor: There's more than one definition of "aggressive." As I recall, in my chapter on aggression I highlight this point. Some characteristics of aggressiveness are negative in a social context, some are not. In Anne Moir and Peter Jessell's book, "Brain Sex," there is ample reference to studies that indicate testosterone does produce the inclination to behave more "aggressively" than women in the sense of being "vigorously energetic" and "boldly assertive." These are virtues.The author pointed out that almost all the tests of testosterone done were done on animals (we wouldn't test humans, they're too important; it's not safe for them), animals contained in very confined environments. It is known that animals will certainly exhibit, after some amount of time, aggressive behaviours toward other animals. And what about the male animals in the wild? Just because they act aggressive and are bent on destroying each other means that it is NATURAL?? that is MASCULINE?? My, isn't that a profoundly logical statement. Just because it is, it must be natural. NOT. I personally happen to believe that animals are subjected to the same cultural perversions of natural destiny as we humans are. That is, they mess up just as we do.
Testosterone has never, ever been proven to produce aggressive behaviour, you can research the scientific data and evidence for yourself - it's just the plain truth. It just doesn't! Scientists have tried and tried time and again to prove it, and haven't even gotten close to some form of logical and conclusive evidence. However, I think some of us would wish to believe it did just so that we could have a "healthy" sexual drive and be "manly" and "virile", whatever that is supposed to be. Ultimately, I think only God knows for sure.
Editor: Aggressive in the sense of committing acts of violence is another matter, entirely. You are correct to say that, in this context, testosterone does not produce aggressive behavior. In fact, several studies of violent male populations indicate it is insufficient testosterone, rather than too much of it, that leads to aggressive behavior in the sense of committing acts of aggression. Indeed, studies show that men who behave violently while using anabolic steroids come under the influence of the so-called "paradoxical" effect, in which the brain responds to so much testosterone analogs by converting them into estrogen. In this respect, testosterone can initiate a cascade effect that ultimately leads to violent behaviors.As well as a logical scientific debate, it is philosophical as well. I never have and never will believe that men were created to be more aggressive than women. To me, it is just plain ridiculous. Why? It is not helpful, necessary, and destroys us in the long run.
How far will science go to try to excuse the foolish actions of countless uncultivated and perverted rapists, murderers, football players, etc.? Is it so healthy for our young boys to go outdoors to play sports and roughhouse while our young girls are confined to the house with their cinch-waisted Barbie Dolls and fluffy, lacy pink things in their sickeningly sweet cotton candy surroundings? All I can say is: Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc!
Editor: Joan of Arc? A lot of speculation about her. Certainly, women are fully capable of committing acts of violence, and I am the last person to say otherwise. (Indeed, as more of us demand accurate reporting, it is becoming clear there are as many female as male perpetrators of sexual assault -- what is archaically called rape.) Regardless, Joan of Arc, is not someone I would chose as an icon of the female capacity for engaging in acts of violence. Assuming she actually was a woman (and there is considerable debate on this point), she was by any measure an exception that could be used to prove a rule.Then, there is the concept of masculinity and femininity. Certainly it is hard for older people to shift their antiquated mind sets to a new way of perceiving gender differences. Does such a distinction between the genders require that one be the ruler and one be the servant, that one be the aggressor and that one be passive, that one be the criminal and one be the victim?In an issue of Ms magazine devoted to feminist writers who are mothers, the recurring theme was of the innate differences between the sexes as can be observed in boys and girls no matter how hard you try to raise them in a gender-free environment. Generally speaking (there are always exceptions), you can force a child to conform to some personally held notion of gender neutrality, but by themselves, children will differentiate. It's only natural.
Editor: According to pop feminists, patriarchy does. On the other hand, we see considerable evidence that it is women, not men, who create this dichotomy. That, left to their own devices, men tend to form fairly equalitarian hierarchies that function as a means to get things done rather than to establish a pecking order.Surely, no person should be either the former or the latter. Does it mean that one is intelligent and the other is stupid, one rational, one emotional? Does it mean that one is brave, the other cowardly? I believe that I have hit a nerve for many people. The fact is, those are the most unfair, unfounded, and ridiculous assumptions that I could ever know.
Editor: The passage above is nonsensical. First, stupidity requires intelligence. (Check your dictionary.) Second, it seems you are stuck in the seventies -- the idea rationality and emotionality are mutually exclusive was generally rejected decades ago. What do bravery and cowardice have to do with innate characteristics? Bravery is the virtue of acting despite fear; cowardice, the vice of giving in to fear.There is something deep, old, and distant in the female spirit, something hidden since the time of the first humans, something special, something sacred, and something necessary for one's full satisfaction in the great event that is life - that thing is assertiveness.
Editor: Sounds fine to me. Problem is, as authors like myself and Warren Farrell have noted, while most men are delighted to encourage women to be assertive, most women either confuse assertiveness with being domineering and mean (that is, with the worst "macho" stereotypes), or they refuse to shoulder their equal share.Both men and women have arms, no? But does that mean they are the same? Of course not! They are just different. One has a physically stronger build, the other a more slender, flexible build. Both men and women have eyes, both have brains, both have hearts, both have legs, both have mouths, both are humans, so does that constitute any significant assimilation between the two? Of course not! Every one of those characteristics mentioned are different from that of the other sex. Unfortunately, we want to choose which one is better or more beneficial.
Editor: Who does? I'm an equalitarian, and I don't. Never have.And, in specific cases, this is true, but ultimately, different things do many of the same things - just in different ways. Just because someone is different than someone else doesn't mean they can't do what that other person is doing. No man whom I have ever known about who was slight in regards to emotion and overpowering, overbearing in logic and bravery was every appealing to me or ever did the world any good. Unfortunately, he has usually been the rapist, the murderer, the wife beater, the child molester, the dictator, the leader of mass genocide, anything of such moral and historical significance.
Editor: Nice list of stereotypes. Kind of ignores, however, that many women rape (now that we are beginning to persuade the authorities to pay attention to women who are guilty of statutory rape, this is becoming very clear), many women murder (when women who kill but are not charged with or arrested for murder are counted, the numbers of domestic homicide are almost identical; and it is becoming increasingly clear that a lot of women are killing babies), just as many women as men are spouse beaters, the evidence is mounting that as many women as men are child molesters, and time will tell with regard to dictators and leaders of mass genocide, but, as one of our writers noted in an article titled "Memsahib Power," women have frequently been the proverbial "power behind the throne" of the leaders of mass genocide.No womyn whom I've ever known about who was pitifully weak, hysterical, emotionally over expressive, and over nurturing to her children to the point where it was not healthy, who ever cowered in the face of danger, was ever feminine to me, was ever appealing to me, ever did any good in the world. Unfortunately, she was the womyn who could have easily stopped or delayed a major disaster from taking place and occurring, or saving someone from imminent death. Yet, if these two being, male and female, characterize the same traits, does that make them the same? Of course not! No more than them both having brains makes them the same. You see, a man who cradles a baby in his arms is the most masculine man who ever walked the Earth to me.
Editor: Good for you! For more than 30 years I've said the very same thing. Of course, 30 years ago a lot of men were saying that, and a lot of women were laughing at us.He is in no way feminine - he overflows with the virtuous, nurturing, loving androgyn that we all know to be testosterone. He simply does what we want womin to do in a different way. That way is not definable by a "role" or "destiny", or any other poor biological research. It is just another way, one that fits just as well as the other. Just to see a man in a nursery glorifies that man, shows that he is just giving another style and version of his own to the emotion we cherish as love. A womyn, as we see her in the traditional sense, who decides that it is only fair and natural for her to climb up the corporate ladder, fly a fighter jet, or learn the art of self defense, is only opening up to herself another opportunity in the multi-faceted sphere of femininity.
Editor: According to a 1988 Baylor University study, more than 80% of American men either prefer or feel comfortable with a female boss, while less than half of American women prefer or feel comfortable with a female boss. Certainly, there's sexism in the workplace, but men are not its primary source.She is doing what she wants to do, what she was meant to do, and what she should be able to do, as well as what she can do. She is doing it in a style all her own, a manner totally different yet no less significant than that of a man. That is what is so amazing about the complicated labyrinth that is the world of the sexes - you can do what someone else who's different from you does, you just do it differently.
In other words, masculine, feminine....they are only different ways of doing the same thing. Except for that one chic who said "they're not different", which is ridiculous and totally not what I think, I am sure any feminist would fervently maintain that a womyn should not have to be like a man to do what a man does. She is made different not because she is meant to do different things, but because she is meant to accomplish the same tasks and goals as does any man, in a different way, in her own way, and the same for men too.
Editor: When economists talk about equality, they use a different term for it: economic advantage. The idea is, we may all be able to do the same things, but some of us do some things very well and other things not so well, and it is in our "economic advantage" to focus on doing those things we do very well and leave it to others to do the things they do very well which we do not do very well, and then exchange our efforts. You may be able to dig a ditch, but maybe I dig ditches very well, while you are better than I at painting portraits. Why waste your time digging ditches, and why should I waste my time painting portraits, when we can do those things which we do very well and, thereby, create greater benefit for the both of us. (Naturally, we are not concerned here with recreational ditch digging and portrait painting, which is something else.)So, that's what I think. Unfortunately, I don't know of any other people who have even come close to my theory in their intellectual contemplations.It seems you rely on a notion of equality in which it is in no one's interest to specialize. That's silly, and certainly not one I, as an equalitarian, would ever embrace.
I'll be back, along with some of my friends.
Good luck and may the Great Spirit take a liking to ya.
With the percentages of men as non-custodial parents being so high, it is logical that the focus and thrust of your article reflects the injustices visited upon them (males).
However, this note is just to let you, and anyone else know, that the injustices are also visited upon female non-custodial parents:
I just wanted to let others know that they are not alone.
Editor: To which tasteless prank...er, essay are you referring?
| Home | January | Features | Columns | OrgNews | Boutique | Directory | Links | Definitions |
The Backlash! is a feature of New Chivalry Press
Copyright © 1997 by New Chivalry Press
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.