In the excellent book, "What's Wrong With Benevolence: Happiness, Private Property, and the Limits of Enlightenment", author David Stove, ends with the following:
"There is a story in American literature somewhere, but I cannot remember where, of a solitary Indian in his canoe, who has been fishing many miles upstream from Niagara Falls. Despite all his local knowledge, he makes some slight misjudgment of time, or wind, or water, and finds himself surprised by the current. For hours he puts forth all his strength in trying to reach the shore, but long before the fatal event itself, he passes a point at which his diminishing strength, and the increasing strength of the current, make further resistance vain. He then ships his paddle, lights his pipe, and folds his arms.In the circumstances those are the actions of a rational man. Similarly, in my opinion, the world-current of Enlightened benevolence is now so strong, and we have been launched upon it for so many years, that we passed the point of no return a long time ago, and will, if we are rational, emulate the Indian in the story."
I found this story right on point to describe my outlook. Its obvious that I hold traditional values and believe them to be the lynchpin of society, however, I also recognize that these values will never again regain a strong footing in our modern world. All good things must come to an end--at least in our mortal world that is. Active Social Conservatives and those of similar minds continue to put all their strength "in trying to reach the shore", in restoring their values to America, yet all the while they are in denial or ignorance that the Falls are coming no matter how hard they fight against. We passed a point of no return long ago and accepting reality, the course ahead, is a rational conclusion. The sooner we accept our fate as a society, the sooner we can grieve, come to terms, and find some sort of closure with its impending death.
64 comments:
My God, Laura. I don't believe in giving up. I don't think we'll come to an end until the end of all time is near.
After ten years of activism for fathers and men's rights, I realized back in 1993 it was a waste of time. That is when I realized I had to leave the USA. I retired in 1997 and now spend 11 months a year in Mexico. I have much more personal freedom here; life is better in many ways, except materialistically, which is not all that important.
Many people assume the end of the current US civilization is the end of the world. How droll. It is just another once great civilization which allowed itself to be destroyed by the insane and unceasing demands of women, and the inability of wimpy men to stand up to them.
If Jennifer has done anything to stop the collapse I have missed it over time in her comments. No society which vigorously attacks its men can last long.
Anonymous age 69
Numerous times I've agreed with Laura or taken to task women who attacked reasonable points. It's amazing societies that hurt women lasted. Our society right now is going down due to liberalism, horrible economic spending and job conditions, all which are by no means supported or caused entirely by women.
I think the reason many link the end of America to the world's end is firstly, duh, due to the fact that it's so powerful and known as the helping hand country. But also, my Bible study group discussed the mention of the fall of a great Nation in Revelations. I do fear for our country, and your words concern me, Laura; you've never seemed like the type to resign. God give us strength.
And turning from God. That's our main point of downfall. Funny how that works: ultra-liberalism isn't just unGodly, it also lacks common and economical sense, that which is required to hold us together.
"Our society right now is going down due to liberalism, horrible economic spending and job conditions, all which are by no means supported or caused entirely by women."
Still living in your not caused by women delusions?
Liberalism, caused & started by feminists ...
Horrible economic spending = caused by affirmative action women & immigrants
Horrible job conditions = caused by affirmative action women & immigrants
& as a response to Jennifers hilarious comment ...
"It's amazing societies that hurt women lasted."
Maybe it had something to do with the fact women like yourself dont contribute much to society much in the first place?
You do realise, you cant be a feminist & a mra at the same time ...
MRA implies feminists are completely wrong ...
Good luck achieving the ludicrous ... lol
Of course, the typical as*hole response about how women weren't that important to begin with. I hate to tell you, but liberalism was not invented by women, and men are not helpless; many have, and do, enjoyed making money off abortions, porn, and free-for-all politics just like women. Unlike you, I will not be living in a loose situation which will neither produce a family nor parents to take care of it. Because I'm neither feminist nor mra, not giving a rat's as* for either blame-everything-on-the-other-sex group.
Anon 69,
Actually, it is Mexico, where you live, that is self-destructing. There are constant drug wars, kidnapping, slaughters, corrupt police, inconsistent public service, poor schooling. I could go on and on. Mexico--which exalts its men-- is falling apart.
Men must be weak indeed, if they allow women to destroy a society!
Jennifer, so why is it you spout feminist slogans like some diarhettic verbal hamster ...
How many men do you know who profit from abortions, & porn ?
Versus how many women do you know who, profit from affirmative action & liberalism, ie welfare moms, single mothers, teen moms?
The EVIDENCE, points to women getting the vote, & they used it to create welfare states & liberalism
To continue their stayathome mom lifestyle, which they've been accustomed to for centuries ...
Creating the insane economic mess we are in today ...
How many billions are all these single mothers & feminist funded liberal programs costing?
I find it hilarious you think vacous women, who essentially want to stay at home raise a few kids, & do a few chores account for real contributions to society ...
Which is what the vast majority of women want to do ...
Most women dont want to contribute to society & history, they want to raise a family ...
There is a difference Jennifer ...
If you're not a feminist then why is it you speak their language?
Women are designed to be the spoils of war, not the victors or warriors
& I'm more then happy to treat women as spoils of war ...
Come on, Laura. This nihilistic outlook doesn't seem becoming of you. Every generation goes through its own despair, and its born out of a sense of self-importance. We may be dead and gone by the time the West re-establishes its Christian roots, but things don't always right themselves on our timeline. Try reading some of the great saints - they can make a pile of dog crap look like a chunk of gold.
So. Doug. Raising children is vacous and doesn't contribute to society, according to you. Yet you say I'M the one who sounds like a feminist, when I'm pro-traditional family and they want to destroy it, saying women accomplish nothing by raising children. The attack on family is part of what's ruining us, and you just added more spew to the myth that it's not important. It's as I said before: you're living as the useless waste of war you described women to be, and don't give a damn about actually helping improve things.
Herbie's right, take a look at poor Habakkuk in the Bible. What a thing he had to look forward to.
Take comfort in the word of the Lord. He warns against listening to the prophets of doom (read carefully the last paragraph!!!):
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon:
"Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce.
Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.
Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."
Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says:
"Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them," declares the LORD.
Jeremiah 29:4-9
Very comforting Justin, thank you.
"find it hilarious you think vacous women, who essentially want to stay at home raise a few kids, & do a few chores account for real contributions to society ...
Which is what the vast majority of women want to do ...
Most women dont want to contribute to society & history, they want to raise a family ..."
wow. Laura wants to be a SAHM and a raise her children.
And much of this blog is devoted to the belief that women shouldn't be in the workforce.
So if you aren't happy with women raising kids, and you aren't happy with them in the workforce, perhaps you are just plain unhappy.
find it hilarious you think vacous women, who essentially want to stay at home raise a few kids, & do a few chores account for real contributions to society ...
This is an excellent statement why I am skeptical of men's rights activists. They are at the core the male version of feminists (women's rights activists) and a tentacle of liberalism. Their entire outlook and philosophy is liberal. Anybody wonder why traditional conservatives and orthodox religious acquire both rage from women's and men's rights activists?
Firstly, I think Laura has a point, albeit an incomplete one. I don't think it's nihilist because nihilism embraces an anarchist view of things, a tendency to do whatever benefits yourself to the exclusion of all else because it doesn't matter.
That is not what Laura is advocating here. I'm certain she is doing all she can in her family, church, and community to live as Christ has commanded us to live.
What she is saying however, is that the drive to wage a culture war is misplaced and that the battle to recover the virtues of the past is a futile one. This is not an irrational thought at all.
Even if things take a turn toward sanity (and I believe they will appear sane as the economic realities come to bear here in the U.S. on a grand scale), the sanity will be utilitarian in nature and short-lived.
Human nature is what it is. Those of you who are familiar with the Old Testament know exactly what I mean.
Good post, Laura.
And oh yes, some of the MRA types do sound like the mirror image of feminists. There's no denying that. Thankfully there are some one good guys among them as well.
"wow. Laura wants to be a SAHM and a raise her children.
And much of this blog is devoted to the belief that women shouldn't be in the workforce."
So now you guys want me to spell out, what is & what isnt a Vacous stayathome mom? ...
If you read my comment history on Laura's amazing blog, you'll realise i'm pro REAL traditional women
The 1950's version of stayathome moms, while the husband goes is NOT a REAL traditional woman
REAL traditional women ie agarian farmers, play VITAL parts in their family's business & communities FROM HOME
REAL traditional women can ONLY exist in a self sustainable community, where the women are given the opportunity to do REAL HARD LABOUR & work FROM HOME
Women who exist in cities, are NOT REAL traditional women, as they have no way of interacting in a self sustainable farm, or environment, conducive to their need for a traditional social network
As this agarian, self sustainable traditional & moral social network simply does not exist in a society
ie. the Amish
In no way, am I against REAL TRADITIONAL WOMEN
Which lets face facts, the vast majority of you women will NEVER get a chance to be REAL traditional women
The vast majority of you, maybe traditional in spirit, but dont kid yourself, you are NOT a REAL traditional woman
You have NEVER worked on a farm, YOU HAVE NEVER DONE ANY REAL HARD LABOUR, or existed in a REAL self sustainable TRADITIONAL society, necessary to create a traditional family in the first place
The 1950's stayathome mom is a SHAM, staying at home & folding sheets & hoovering, is NOT TRADITIONAL
IF you want to EMBODY the true spirit of REAL traditional women, do some real work FROM HOME
Folding sheets, & raising a COUPLE OF KIDS, is anything but traditional, it is the complete anti-thesis & insult to REAL TRADITIONALISM
A REAL traditionalist does back breaking HARD LABOUR on a daily basis, & plays a vital role in their TRADITIONAL communities & contributes to society FROM HOME
You stayathome moms, in your suburban picket fences, are NOT REAL TRADITIONAL WOMEN, if you're not working from home, & contributing to your families income FROM HOME, as your GRANDMOTHERS, & GREAT GRANDMOTHERS did before you, you're merely living off your husband & the very definition of a social parasite
Btw I should've added ...
The stayathome mom is a recent phenomenon, it is NOT traditional
Prior to the industrial age, including the victorians, REAL TRADITIONAL women did NOT simply stay at home while their husbands went to work
They worked from HOME, to support their family's income
In NO WAY, is traditionalism an excuse to become a stayathome social parasite, REAL traditionalism is all about Hard Work & Supporting the family & husband financially & socially FROM HOME
Home schooling, in some suburban picket fence, for a few hours, while you let the kids run riot for the rest of the day, while you go do the laundry, is the very ANTI-THESIS to REAL TRADITIONAL CULTURE
What back-breaking work would you suggest these women do? Most live in the suburbs or cities because that is where their husband's jobs are. I understand you don't think laundry is "real work". But what should they do instead, while they neglect the laundry.
If you don't want to support a sahm, just say so.
I guess you are saying that Laura will be doing some back-breaking work when she becomes a SAHM. But what back-breaking work do you want her to do--and why is it so important that she do it?
Assuming you do "back-breaking work" all day (and that's a big assumption), why do things need to be "even" in order for you to feel OK about the nuclear family?
Sounds like you just don't like the model of a SAHM or a SAHD. So don't participate in it. But don't get twisted in a knot because it works for some people. Many children thrive having a consistent parent at home. Many other kids (because of disabilities or other problems) actually need a full-time caretaker.
What you demand of many women isn't possible, Rmax, and your words are as usual senseless. Not even all men do back-breaking work. That's called progression, honey. Thanks for trying to damn us for it; this blessed progression happened largely because of the modern inventions of MEN. And guess what: really rich women back in the day often didn't do much of anything non-social, including raise their own children! And those today who do jobs outside the home, hard as they may be, OR raise their kids (letting them run riot? You know nothing of homeschoolers) are damned by you as well. I'm pretty much done with responding, you're just an anti-woman fool who bitches against females and minorities for the heck of it.
Great points, Anon. For most, things are pretty even, especially if you have a husband and as much as three kids; you'll be the cleaner, the feeder, the food collector and the life over-seer for all those people.
Amen, Susan and Terri.
I've reached the same conclusion, Laura, quite some time ago. Laurence Auster has also now come to this view -- namely that the liberal juggernaut will not be reversed and that instead it must run its course.
Ugh, hasn't it already? How many more babies need to die, marriages crumble, young adults waste themselves?
Terry,
You are correct, thanks. While we all may do what we can nothing is going to change on a large scale until society as a whole turns back to God. It is this aspect which i am folding my arms on. I am basically kicking back and letting God's will be God's will. All is not hopeless though because i set my hopes on the things to come once we leave this world.
"This volume is an attempt to describe, briefly and without great detail, certain aspects of the sexual life of a significant number of American women of the upper and middle income groups, an attempt which, I think, may throw some light upon the general condition and position of women in the United States, and may help to clarify some of the statements so often made concerning them. It is, for example, repeatedly said that there is 'something wrong' with the American woman, that she plays a dominant role in the social structure of the United States, and that, having gained so much, she is nevertheless profoundly dissatisfied, frustrated, resentful and neurotic."
That is the first paragraph of a book titled The American Woman by Eric John Dingwall, a British anthropologist.
It was published in 1957.
Laura is absolutely right. We passed the point of no return decades and decades ago. The feminist stench is so entrenched in our education system and permeates every corner of our public life that the mere questioning of it results in cries of heresy.
I'm learning Brazilian Portuguese and plan to move to Rio in less than two years. No offense, but I am absolutely finished with the Western female. She can do whatever she likes, but I will not be a part of her nightmare.
Good luck to you all.
It's not just a female's nightmare, Zorro. Feminism was a branch of a multi-tiered toxic cloud.
Yes, *good luck* to us all.
"I'm learning Brazilian Portuguese and plan to move to Rio in less than two years. No offense, but I am absolutely finished with the Western female."
Brazil is in the West!
I'm sure the "Western female" (in Brazil or the US), is very upset you are finished with her.
Okee-dokee.
I'm finished with the North American female.
The bonitas with the big hynies kinda do it for me.
When one takes into account our energy predicament (e.g. peak oil) and social inertia, it does seem that collapse is inevitable.
The stayathome mom is a recent phenomenon, even though the stayathome mom lifestyle has existed for centuries.
Make up your mind you stupid git.
>>Actually, it is Mexico, where you live, that is self-destructing.
Actually, Mexico is far from the worst place. Mexico with its well known violence and murders has around 18 murders per 100,000 population. Honduras has 82, and Guatemala and El Salvador not far behind.
But, you miss the point. Life in the wonderful USA is so unpleasant for men, many of us (I am not alone here) would rather live in Mexico than in the USA. That pretty much displays what you women have done.
Anonymous age 69
I have not been able to verify it, but a few weeks ago I read on a news page that 40% of young American men would like to expat. That is an incredible statement as to what they think of the American society.
I do my part. I write almost every day on message boards and blogs, what life is like here in rural Mexico. I have much more personal freedom here than in the USA.
Several years ago, a very busy MRA board shut down. I had been writing little anecdotes about daily life here in rural Mexico. Men started visiting other countries to see for themselves what I was writing about.
Eventually, the board shut down because the owner and all his staff had left the USA to live elsewhere.
There are two things I write over and over. One is you can tell the American Women from the Mexican women 30 feet away by the angry look on the faces of American Women. Men come to Mexico to see for themselves, and go back laughing, "It's true!"
The other thing is that collectively American women are clinically insane. That is not just a nasty comment. That means they are out of touch with reality. While being the most spoiled, pampered, protected group of people to live on the planet, they imagine they are victimized at every breath by evil men.
Another example of AW psychosis is the large number of AW who actually believe that men serve no useful purpose at all, except possibly to send a woman money in the mail. Yet, almost everything you see, in your house and out, was built and invented by men, including the houses they live in.
Another current example of insanity among women is this stupid captain in Italy who managed to wreck his ship and kill a bunch of people. After 45 years of screams; insults; and lawsuits over equality, insane English speaking women imagined men would still obediently stand back and die for their royal majesties based on Medieval chivalry, just cause they have female sex organs.
Anonymous age 69
By the way, one of the neatest comments I saw on several news pages about the shipwreck with comments was one about women's plaintive plea that women must go with the children, because they take care of the children, who are most important of all. Part of their argument was that men are more physically capable of surviving without help.
A man pointed out that if men are expected to survive by themselves because of superior skills and capabilities, then men should stay with the children, who then would be much more likely to survive as well, than in the care of mothers who are not even deemed capable of saving themselves without help and preferences.
Sure sounds right to me.
Also, figures on the Titanic were given. A much higher percentage of women survived than children, which IMO shows the women didn't really care if the kids survived or not.
Anonymous age 69
Yes, many women are insane. The idea that people are pissed because the Italian captain ignored women, and that children died on the Titanic because women didn't care about them is pretty logically unstable as well.
Anon 69 is such a gentleman. I can only imagine how he might have behaved had he been on board that Italian cruise ship.
Given that he hates women, I imagine that he might have shoved and pushed his way to a life boat knocking down women and children in the process.
He loves the children in Mexico, so I doubt it. But there is little other than contempt for universal women.
"Given that he hates women, I imagine that he might have shoved and pushed his way to a life boat knocking down women and children in the process."
Or, perhaps, like the Captain of the Costa Concordia, he'd accidentally trip while in the midst of his valiant rescue efforts, only to find that he had fallen into a lifeboat.
On the other hand, perhaps, like the Captain of the Oceanos, he would abandon ship first in order to put together and coordinate the rescue effort...once he was on dry land, of course.
By the way, why is it that when a woman isn't smiling vapidly 24/7, the assumption that men make is that she is angry?
Let's focus on the topic at hand. The world is completely backwards in that it's worried about offending stupid, insipid sensitivities instead of preventing sin and concern over those who are hurt by them. I just saw a news clip that a HS refused a cougar mascot because it "may offend women of a certain age" *cough*middle-aged sluts*cough*. This is a good example, as is the removal of the Ten Commandments; God forbid we say thou shalt not kill or commit adultery! It may offend the sensitive atheists.
"Actually, Mexico is far from the worst place. Mexico with its well known violence and murders has around 18 murders per 100,000 population. Honduras has 82, and Guatemala and El Salvador not far behind.
But, you miss the point. Life in the wonderful USA is so unpleasant for men, many of us (I am not alone here) would rather live in Mexico than in the USA. That pretty much displays what you women have done."
That's the death rattle of a civilization right there. Higher levels of violence, corruption, poverty, and lawlessness on the one hand, the prosecutocracy, DV-industry, and feminized workplaces and schools on the other. For more and more men, the former seems a small price to be free of the latter.
Jennifer writes that "It's amazing societies that hurt women lasted." I suspect that she's employing a pretty expansive definition of "hurt" there, but ponder this: By her lights, amazing or no, such societies did last. No society that maltreats its men has ever done so.
The societies I described were ones like cruel tribes, Twenty, and some of the practices in India; not "expansive" in the definition of hurt by any stretch of the imagination. They lasted because the women in them were physically harmed and taught this was normal, not because they were less important citizens than men. I'm glad most men don't imagine violence and poverty to be preferable to a country that's still far greater, but those who do make their choice. It was a man who told me, when I considered England as a better choice of location if Obama won, that America would always be the best choice. Once again, this is not a matter exclusively about men.
"The societies I described were ones like cruel tribes, Twenty, and some of the practices in India; not "expansive" in the definition of hurt by any stretch of the imagination."
Which is it ... are you talking about tribal societies, or India, which, as its historical artifacts plainly show, was anything but?
Also, the fact that an expansive definition covers a narrow one does not render that expansive definition narrow.
"They lasted because the women in them were physically harmed and taught this was normal ..."
... and because women will go for that sort of thing. Men, on the other hand, aren't such suckers.
"I'm glad most men don't imagine violence and poverty to be preferable to a country that's still far greater, but those who do make their choice."
I've no doubt that you're glad. Don't take too much comfort in that "most", though -- either in its permanence, or in the notion that so long as 51% of the men will tolerate abuse, society can afford to write off the other 49%. It's the most resourceful and aggressive who are likely to leave first.
"It was a man who told me, when I considered England as a better choice of location if Obama won, that America would always be the best choice."
Comparing two countries in the Anglosphere is hardly the same thing as discussing expatriation to the Hispanidad. FWIW, I agree with your interlocutor on the narrow question cited.
If you want to save your society, word to make it a place a man might be proud to live.
"Which is it ... are you talking about tribal societies, or India"
I was talking about both, like certain tribes AND some practices in India.
"... and because women will go for that sort of thing"
No, they won't, if they know better. But if they're the physically weaker sex, and especially if they're all taught that they have some kind of value in living that way (feminism, otoh, never offered anything for men), than they'll tend to attempt to make their niches in life work, at least for a while. But most of the time, if women are abused, sooner or later they'll turn and attack those who harmed them. Or, the society may progress on its own.
I wish for nothing more than to erase sexist laws against men and make America once again a God-honoring nation.
"The sooner we accept our fate as a society, the sooner we can grieve, come to terms, and find some sort of closure with its impending death."
Exactly. As individuals in the West, we can still find peace and happiness, but our society as a whole is irredeemable. This is simply an honest acknowledgement of cause and effect. Casting pearls before swine won't solve anything now. Acknowledging the truth should never be misconstrued as “giving up.” It is the necessary first step in allowing ourselves to be guided by the truth. In following the truth we have learned, our efforts will not be wasted. We can benefit from the truth, even if no one else chooses to do so.
Laura, you have done a great service in providing information to the world, but the greatest service you can ever do in this world is being the kind of godly woman you know you should be. Your living example of godly womanhood can do more good than all the world’s forgotten manuscripts on the subject. You can still find joy in your own home, even as civilization crumbles all around you. Your greatest happiness is yet to come. May you find peace in this life, joy in your family, and eternal life in the world to come.
>>Anon 69 is such a gentleman. I can only imagine how he might have behaved had he been on board that Italian cruise ship.
>>Given that he hates women, I imagine that he might have shoved and pushed his way to a life boat knocking down women and children in the process.
>>January 19, 2012 8:34 PM
This is called shaming language. There is no evidence whatsoever that I hate "women." You made that up just as small children will say, "La la la" in a sarcastic tone to another child. I do hate women who are hateful, and no one has ever explained why I should not hate hateful women. Nor can you. Women who use shaming language are generally rather hateful. Please carry on.
The women of the USA and UK are known throughout the world as being hateful.
>> He loves the children in Mexico, so I doubt it. But there is little other than contempt for universal women.
>> January 19, 2012 8:40 PM
I don't know any universal women. I do know a lot about the collective behavior of American women. Let's see. Over a million abortions a year. The average girl is sexually active around 16 years old, average marriage age -- for those who do marry -- is 26, average bride has had 11 lovers before marriage.
Those are average numbers, which mean a lot are even worse. The problem is not with any man who points out the bad behavior of American women, as you seem to think. The problem is with the bad behavior of American women.
>>I wish for nothing more than to erase sexist laws against men and make America once again a God-honoring nation.
>>January 21, 2012 4:14 PM
That cannot be done by suppressing male dissent, which is what the insults and shaming language in these comments are all about. Unlike Larry Summers, you cannot have me fired from my employment.
>>Laura, you have done a great service in providing information to the world, but the greatest service you can ever do in this world is being the kind of godly woman you know you should be.
January 22, 2012 11:28 AM
Amen, brother. I am confident Laura well understands I do not hate her. She is not hateful.
There is something the anonymous folks do not understand. My generation (80's and 90's) of MRA's were almost universally very close to (non-hateful) women. Most of my personal friends since age 10 have been women. That is still the case here in Mexico at age 69.
I do care what good women think of me. I do resent the insults and name-calling and dehumanizing which is a basic part of life in the Anglosphere for all men. I see no reason to remain silent in the face of 45 years of vicious attacks on men that put Goebbels attacks on Jews to shame.
Anonymous age 69
Dalrock has given a different view of Woman And, Children First. WACF.
He says there is evidence that WACF or any type of sorting evacuation increases loss of life. In the first use of WACF, the crew actually had to forcibly take women and drop them over the side, since they didn't want to leave their husbands.
And, it is well known many seats on the Titanic went unused, because of the slow loading resulting from WACF. Many, perhaps hundreds more could have been saved if first come first served was the rule. Better hundreds of men die than let men go first? Dumb.
Also, someone questioned whether men really pushed to the front of women. Or, were there women dithering in front of the life boats slowing things up, and men, being more decisive, simply walked around them. And, the old feminists then shouted, "Look, men are pushing ahead."
Let's face it. WACF is pure female sexism, and there is no evidence to support it, but lots of evidence it is a bad idea for many reasons.
Anonymous age 69
All the comments here are not all about repressing male dissent, but reacting to a great deal of things that have been said. There is indeed a crisis in this country involving sexually active young people, and it's not all about young women; many young men are acting terribly too, and both are doing so under the influence of "sexual freedom". I for one will be very concerned about the kind of sexual world my sons, not just my daughters, will be going into, and I care just as much about the number of lovers men have had before marriage. The sexual revolution has both sexes acting badly. This has been another stepping stone in the process done to hurt families.
"My generation (80's and 90's) of MRA's were almost universally very close to (non-hateful) women."
Indeed, many women are very unhappy with feminism. I don't think anyone should be quiet about it. As for WACF, I think it was noble in its time, and now it should be first-come based, with preference given to kids and the elderly when it can be. I think that the fact that women didn't want to be separated from their husbands showed that they cared very much about others besides themselves.
"Also, figures on the Titanic were given. A much higher percentage of women survived than children, which IMO shows the women didn't really care if the kids survived or not."
Anon 69, how can you say something like this and then claim that you do not hate women? You drew a stupid conclusion like this because you must take delight in being nasty when speaking of women in general.
You may not hate specific women. You merely hate women in general. I have read enough of what you have written here at this blog to convince me of that. All the red flags are there.
"Everyone's f---ed and they don't even know...", in the words of a Canadian pop song from the last year or two.
Here's the latest: Obama wants Christian schools to pay for their students' abortions. To PAY for them. And allow them any kind of sexual counseling they need. Hey: educate kids about STDs, sure, and offer counseling for those who messed themselves up by having sex anyway. But PAYING for killing babies.
I'm seriously waiting, now, for Obama to propose building school rooms for kids to have sex in. That's what I said when my mom told me about this: "Why not just build SEX rooms for them? We're allowing them all kinds of other provisions for doing it." And now, this doesn't sound like it's beyond Obama to me. Seriously; I can hear his argument now: these would be "safe rooms". Isn't it better they do it here, where it's safe, instead of in seedy motels or parking lots?? How about supervised drug use?
I have read posts by Anon 69 for YEARS and there is no way he is misogynist. NO. WAY.
He is expressing his opinion, and you are having your period over it. You don't like it. That does NOT make him a misogynist. NO. He might be unpopular or arrogant or whatever, but he does NOT hate women as a class. And neither do I.
Get. Over. Yourself!
Reacting negatively to an unkind assumption is not "having your period" over it.
Okay. Fine. I'll just curl up in a corner and just pout.
I'll have a cookie ready when you're done.
Get a load of this, guys and gals: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4075523/Its-a-boy-Couple-reveal-sex-of-their-gender-neutral-kid-after-five-years.html
Post a Comment