Friday, July 10, 2009

Men have lost the 'battle of the sexes' . . . because the opponent cheats

Gentlemen, it is now obvious that the much ballyhooed "battle of the sexes" was over even before it had begun, and our side never fired a shot. It is incumbent on men to raise the white flag of surrender, but we mustn't feel bad because we never had a chance -- we are far too chivalrous, and our opponents fight dirty. To use a baseball analogy, their tactics are akin to moving the outfield wall in 100 feet every time they come to bat, then moving it back when our team comes up. You see, women won the battle with an amazingly simple, yet frighteningly ingenious, strategy: they merely declared their superiority to men in every facet of life, and that was enough to send our side into retreat. The facts speak for themselves:

Women remove male role models from their sons' lives, then when their sons behave badly, the women blame "patriarchy."

Stereotyping girls as inferior to boys in any facet of life is "misogyny"; stereotyping boys as potential batterers and rapists is a public service announcement.

Boys are told they must never hit a girl, and they are given license to beat the crap out of other boys. Girls are told boys must never hit a girl, and they are given license to beat the crap out of boys.

Women insist that our daughters be given the right to play on the boys' sports teams, even if it means taking spots away from boys. Boys either are banned outright, or are socially ostracized, from playing on the girls' teams. Net result: girls are afforded more opportunities to play than boys.

When girls supposedly were behind boys in educational achievement, most men agreed there was a problem with the schools (even though there wasn't); now that it's clear boys really are behind girls in every indicia of educational achievement, women tell us the problem is the boys, the schools are just fine.

Women say they want men to be less "manly" and more sensitive and caring; those same women refuse to date actual men who are more sensitive and caring because they aren't sufficiently "manly."

Women harshly brand young men hesitant about marriage as commitment-phobes; when those same women later end their marriages on a whim or because they aren't feeling "fulfilled," they don't see how their own "commitment" is at all pertinent to the issue.

A woman who tells her fiance that she wants to take time off from work when they have children is called a normal woman; a man who tells his fiance he wants to take time off from work when they have children is called an ex-fiance.

Attending a bachelor party with a stripper is disgusting and depraved; attending a bachelorette party with a stripper and a raunchy cake depicting an ejaculating penis is a girls' night out.

Women insist that men be "equal partners" in performing their share of domestic chores, and this "partnership" consists of women dictating which domestic chores must be performed and the precise manner and timing of performing them.

If a man wants sex more often than his wife is willing to give, he's selfish; if a woman wants sex more often than her husband is willing to give, he's selfish.

Married men who have affairs are selfish pigs; married women who have affairs are seeking the fulfillment they are not getting in their marriages.

Women insist their husbands assume the responsibilities of being a full parent, but as soon as a woman files for divorce, she and the judge let the man in on the little joke he's the last to hear: he is not, and could never be, a full parent; he is just an ATM.

When a man in an intact family goes through tough financial times the entire family tightens their belts and sacrifices together. After the woman kicks the man out of the house, if the man goes through tough financial times, the family does not tighten their belts -- dad either comes up with the support money, or he goes to jail.

Women criticize men for not be actively involved in their children's lives, but the minute they see a man they don't know in the park with his own children, they call the cops.

Women-owned businesses are afforded all manner of special treatment to encourage women to have a greater role in the workforce; men seeking to enter the domestic sphere are afforded nothing, least of all encouragement.

When men work in dangerous, physically demanding jobs that few people want, it's their choice; when women are paid less for working in safe, physically undemanding jobs that everyone wants, it's "discrimination."

Now that young women outearn their male counterparts in many large cities, do women cede the mantle of victimhood and celebrate having overcome discrimination? No, they bellyache that they can't find mates who are their intellectual peers.

Women insisted on having equal access to every place men congregate, then as soon as they gained admittance they insisted on having "women-only" spaces.

Women insist on total equality in every sphere of life, but snidely remark that any male who exits the elevator before they do has no manners.

Women complain that men "objectify" them, then they proceed to subsidize the multi-billion dollar fashion and beauty industries, driven entirely by women, in order to appeal to men.

Women gripe that men treat them as sex objects while making no apologies for treating men as success objects.

Women label older men with younger women as "disgusting" and "dirty old men"; women label older women with younger men as "empowered."

Women claim they are "objectified" in television commercials and programs and movies despite the fact that female characters are almost always portrayed as smart, wise, and put-upon by the selfish and oafish male characters with whom they interact.

Male bashing = humorous and empowering; female bashing = misogyny.

Man who hits his wife = batterer, felon; woman who cuts off her husband's penis = victim, feminist hero.

When women commit domestic violence, it's called "self defense"; when men act in self-defense, it's called "domestic violence."

When an angry wife or girlfriend commits a terrible atrocity against her husband or boyfriend, we gussy it up with romantic imagery and call it "scorned love." When the genders are reversed, it's plain old "domestic violence."

Rape of women is a national crisis; rape of men in prison is a punchline.

Women shame young men who would never harm a woman that they must be "part of the solution" to end rape; if men tell young women they must be "part of the solution" to end rape by being careful, that's "victim blaming."

When underage teens have consensual sex, usually only one is convicted as a statutory rapist and, upon his release, required to register as a sex offender. Can you guess his gender?

Men having sex with teen girls are viewed as the lowest form of life, and they are usually sent to prison for many years; women having sex with teen boys are seen as "mixed up" and emotionally immature, and if they receive any prison sentence, it is far lighter than when the genders are reversed.

Women tout the glories of the "hook up" culture so long as no obligations are expected of them: if both the guy and the girl get drunk and have sex, she's a rape victim, and he's a rapist.

A teen girl who is statutorily raped can have an abortion if her rapist impregnates her; a teen boy who is statutorily raped will be forced to pay child support to his rapist if she decides to have the child. And if the boy doesn't pay, he will be jailed as a "deadbeat dad."

When a woman accuses a man of rape and he denies it, there are conflicting claims of criminality, yet only one is arrested; only one's name is reported in the news for the world to titillate to his humiliation; only one is likely to be imprisoned if he's convicted; and only one will have the accusation trail him like a ghost for the rest of his life even if it is false. Can you guess his gender?

Women insist that males are undeservedly "privileged," arrogating to themselves the right to define what "privileged" means. Apparently not taken into account in their definition are the following facts:

▲On average, women outlive men in developed countries by five or more years;

▲Men have higher death rates for all fifteen of the leading causes of death (except Alzheimer’s);

▲Men are approximately 50% of the workforce but account for 93% of job related deaths;

▲Males between 20 and 24 have a seven times greater rate of suicide than their female counterparts, and overall, men commit suicide at rates three to four times greater than women;

▲Innocent males are between 1.5 to 2 times more likely than females to be assaulted;

▲Government funding for breast cancer research outpaces funding for prostate cancer research by nearly two to one even though prostate cancer and breast cancer have roughly the same caseload;

▲Death among young men due to testicular cancer in the 15-34 age group outpaces the number of deaths from breast cancer among women in the same age group, but good luck trying to remember the last time a commercial entity raised awareness about testicular cancer;

▲Victims of war -- both combatants and, yes, non-combatants -- are more likely to be male;

▲Responsible young men are charged considerably more for auto insurance than irresponsible young women, simply because they were born male;

▲A woman who commits the same crime as a man will receive, on average, only a fraction of the sentence; and

▲During FY 2007, 158,935 names and addresses of suspected violators of the duty to register with the Selective Service System were provided to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for their failure to register, carrying a penalty up to five years in prison -- every one of the violators was male -- because young women are exempt from even registering.

That, you see, is what is known as "male privilege." But even pointing out these facts and suggesting that there is any inequity favoring women will be met with disgusted eye rolling on the part of the opposition. That's one of their formidable weapons that helped them win the "battle of the sexes" before a single shot was fired.

158 comments:

Anonymous said...

•Stereotyping girls as inferior to boys in any facet of life is "misogyny"; stereotyping boys as potential batterers and rapists is a public service announcement.

Precisely. Going online and calling for O.J. Simpson to be murdered is considered righteous indignation; say negative things about Crystal Mangum or Ashley Todd and you're a horrible misogynist.

Anonymous said...

One thing to remember. Women can do none of this without the Government. Women are nothing without the Government. Right now, their legislated illusion of a life is supported by a bankrupt government.

You can't strengthen the weak (women) by weakening the strong (men). There will be consequences.

Will Western Men ever wake up? No!

Roy said...

Having now stated the bare facts (and in an utterly fantastic post if I may add), it now begs the question of what are Men's next moves?
Do we go on bewailing the sad state of affairs? Do we Go Our Own Way and become a part of the Ghost Nation, as many have already done? Do we wave the white flag of surrender, which we of course must NEVER do! Or do we watch passively from the sidelines hoping Feminism will one day implode/self-destruct?
In any case, something should be done. I cannot imagine us just sitting there and allowing the opponent to "cheat", because women have demonstrated, inherently, that which is the one of worst aspects of humankind - give someone a inch and that someone will take a mile.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I don't agree with the statement that women are nothing without the government. False accusers are definitely nothing without the government, but that's only a fraction of women. Without the government women would still be working in a wide variety of jobs, earning money that is far beyond what they have earned in the past. The "gender pay gap" is almost entirely a myth, even if it exists at all -- and nobody disputes that it's shrinking.

Feminist special interest groups have been pushing their belief in collective female victimhood for decades, and the primary beneficiaries of this have been women who are out to abuse the legal system, not the ones who are contributing to society in the home and through honest work. The women who break up their marriages for selfish reasons and then milk their ex-husbands for everything they can get have benefitted, and obviously false rape accusers have gained a status that is virtually above the law.

Honest women? Not much gain there. Without the government's "help" their lives would be just fine.

Anonymous said...

And when I say the "government," I'm not talking about social security, medicare, whatever. I'm talking about our biased divorce and abuse industries which are driven by feminist ideology.

Archivist said...

Roy, I agree we must never wave the white flag of surrender. I said that as a little hyperbole to get men to pay attention.

One of the things we need to do is to take back the vocabulary. Allowing feminist women (who think it's an empowering thing to raise boys without fathers) to blame "patriarchy" for society's ills is flat-out sick; it's destructive to our children -- not to mention the fact that it's just good old fashioned man-hating. That's what a lot of this is: man-hating, and we need to say it. We need to take issue every time we are negatively stereotyped, just as every single other group in America does. It is definitely happening: Sacks is becoming much more maintstream by focusing on an issue no sane person can disagree with: fathers. Our issue is one that resonates with a lot of people.

I agree, we mustn't be passive.

Anonymous said...

That's one of the reasons I use the word "patriarchy." It's a good thing, not a bad thing!

Yat said...

Sir, I salute you for saying out what I've been thinking all these years!

Archivist said...

Thank you, Yat. I just want to start a dialogue about the way the feminist movement has siezed the language and turned it against men.

Anonymous said...

Fucking brilliant piece.

Anonymous said...

Bravo! I also printed this.I refuse to wave the white flag. I had a thought not too long ago; The sufferagette wovement was hijacked by the women's movement. The women's movement was hijacked by feminism. Feminism was hijacked by radical feminism.

Anonymous said...

For too long men have been silent, and have been silenced, as feminists have generalized,demonized,criminalized and stereotyped us for decades. How long would a man allow another man to degrade and dinegrate him before fighting back? What would the forefathers of this nation think if they saw what is happening/being allowed to happen now? Would they be angry to see the constitutional rights of men being trampled under the feet of politicians and the courts? Our lives begin to end when we remain silent about things that matter- MLK Jr

Anonymous said...

And if they want equality, let's work to change things so that 50% of workplace injuries are suffered by women (instead of less than 10%), so that men live as long as women, and so that women represent 50% of prison inmates. After all, if we aren't getting an even share of the pie, it must be due to sexist bigotry.

Anonymous said...

(Some thoughts, which I also posted as a response on a blog...)

Women have always had rights that were superior to men, and an easier life. Feminists have promoted a misleading myth claiming that women were oppressed -- not so. Throughout history men have always done the dangerous and dirty jobs that women were unwilling to do and this is still the case today, with over 90% of workplace fatalities being suffered by men. The next time a feminist complains about how hard women have had it ask her how many women died in the Civil War, WWI and WWII. Men have always had it tougher and we always will.

Anonymous said...

off topic

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/talk/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/

Which gender composes the highest prison population?

Anonymous said...

Considering how many men and boys may be locked up for false rape accusations, I have to wonder how feminism profits from the incarceration of males

Norm said...

"The next time a feminist complains about how hard women have had it ask her how many women died in the Civil War, WWI and WWII. Men have always had it tougher and we always will."

According to Warren Farrell, one million men died in one battle alone - the Battle of the Somme.

Novaseeker said...

Great article and a nice comprehensive list of the hypocrisies that comprise mainstream feminist culture.

The issue we face, though, guys, is not so much women as it is other men.

Feminism would have gotten nowhere without a lot of help from men. Some of these men have recanted (Farrell is an example of that), but most have not. If you try to have an open discussion about the items on the list, or divorce law or something like that with the average male office colleague, you'll quickly learn that most men do not agree with us, still, and have imbibed deeply the feminist worldview.

Unfortunately I think this is in part biological: the tendency for males to step on other males in order to placate women and curry female favor. In any system that doesn't have strict monogamy, male cooperation will tend to break down, and that's what we've seen here in the past few decades.

I do think that the issue is solvable, and that raising awareness is key. That's why places like this, and Glenn's place and so on are so important in getting the word out. We need more men to think about these issues and be aware of them in a comprehensive way, so that more of them "jump ship" culturally and come over to our side of the fence.

Pierce Harlan said...

"If you try to have an open discussion about the items on the list, or divorce law or something like that with the average male office colleague, you'll quickly learn that most men do not agree with us, still, and have imbibed deeply the feminist worldview."

Thanks, Novaseeker. We need people like you to lead the fight.

I think that most men aren't exposed to the underbelly of feminism. They don't read things like what Emily Cook said in a UK newspaper about the news that scientists can now create sperm in a lab: "Women have always known that men are a bit of a waste of space. Now British scientists have proved how unnecessary blokes truly are by creating the first human sperm from stem cells." http://www.mirror.co.uk/most-popular/2009/07/08/the-end-of-men-115875-21503346/ Most men who read stuff like this are offended by it, and can't understand where it's coming.

Throw a man in jail on a false rape charge, and he becomes a rabid antifeminist. Throw him in an unfair custody battle -- same thing.

It's exposure. Men need to take their noses out of the sports page every now and then hear what is going on. When they hear it, most will not like it.

Norm said...

"If you try to have an open discussion about the items on the list, or divorce law or something like that with the average male office colleague, you'll quickly learn that most men do not agree with us, still, and have imbibed deeply the feminist worldview."


I'm not sure about office workers in specific, but three or four times I've started talking to strangers out of the blue about men's rights in general, and they all seemed to know what I was talking about and they agreed (not that they were all MRA's as such). It was not myself that did all the talking either.

Two of the scenarios were while I was waiting in car dealership service departments, and the other one I remember was in some place like a Kinko's. It seems like there was also another time.

There was one time I mentioned the concept of mens rights to a convenience store manager, and he said "what?", but he did not get antagonistic...he just drew a blank.

One factor to consider is that the area of the country I live in is generally progressive.

Norm said...

btw I'm not sure it's a good idea to bring this stuff up at work. It might politicize relationships with co-workers, especially if any of them are feminists. You really don't want that element hanging in the air, depending on what specific industry you're in. If a techie, engineer or etc, I wouldn't do it myself.

Just my two cents worth.

Archivist said...

I think you can get away with expressing your opinions better if they are grounded in verifiable fact and if you are responding to an assertion that is not true. Yesterday someone brought up a local rape case and noted they were outraged that the defendant was acquitted. I noted that I do legal work in this area and have learned that the only unbiased studies ever conducted show that around half of rape claims are false. The person was shocked.

Now if I had the reputation of believing that men are oppressed in every facet of life, then I wouldn't persuade too many people. That's why we need to pick our spots and not go looking for discrimination oozing from every pore.

Norm said...

With regard to spreading the word, I think one thing to consider is this: although it may seem that we're always preaching to the choir and that no new 'members' are coming on-board, as yourelf "how did I become an MRA'
You must have heard about men's rights somewhere; or if your like me, you just happened to be browsing in a bookstore and saw Farrell or something else that caught your eye.

In my case it was Tom Ellis and "The Rantings of a Single Male." I'm not sure Farrell's a good place to start, expecially for a woman. If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd say read something from Jack Kammer first. He doesn't come off as radical-sounding, and his works are generally very short. Also you can get them on lulu.com for less than $5 to download. (at least that was true as of about 1 year ago.)

Norm said...

the above should say ASK yourself, "how did I become an MRA?"

Anonymous said...

Throw a man in jail on a false rape charge, and he becomes a rabid antifeminist. Throw him in an unfair custody battle -- same thing.

It would be nice if that was true, but there are literally millions of men involved in unfair custody battles, and hundreds of thousands who are unfairly subjected to restraining orders and other legal measures that cause irreperable harm to their reputations. How many of these men contribute regularly to men's rights organizations? Very few of them.

But as the MRA movement picks up steam, more men will jump onboard as they realize that this isn't just a flash in the pan. Men collectively really can make a difference.

Remember that NOW probably has fewer than a quarter of a million regulars, and they have wrapped Washington around their fingers. Eventually we can be the ones who the politicians pander to.

Novaseeker said...

I think it's *very* true that we need to pick our issues carefully and be able to back them up. Scattershot will not get us far, at least not in this culture.

To me, three core areas where we can make some hay, probably are (1) fatherhood issues, (2) education issues relating to boys and (3) false rape issues as are discussed here. All three areas are important, clearly, and all are areas where, if we present the case well, we can make some progress among men -- and that has to be our main focus at the moment.

We also need women, and some women will come along as well even at this stage of things, but principally for now we need more men.

Anonymous said...

Beyond these important issues, men should support each other politically just because we're men. And why shouldn't we? That's what women do. We're just providing a political counterweight.

But men still don't think of themselves as a social class, even though women do. That is what needs to change. We have a moral obligation to restore the social status of men so that we can cure the many ills that feminism and creeping authoritarianism have caused.

Novaseeker said...

It will be some time before men do that, Anon, I think.

I honestly think that women are "wired" to respond to male threats/challenges by banding together/herding. That's the famous "sisterhood". It only exists really in the context of male/female confrontation. Women can treat each other quite poorly when they are just dealing with each other, but if one of them is in conflict with a man, the herding instinct kicks in, and most (not all) women unite to suppress the male threat, or support the woman in conflict with the man.

I don't think we, as men, are wired that way. It would appear to be more the case that we are wired to compete with each other, rather than see commonalities with each other. So that's the challenge we're up against, and one of the main reasons the MRA movement has not taken off like feminism. Feminism simply lit the fire -- the kindling was already, for the most part, naturally there. Not so for us.

Now that's not insurmountable. Not at all. It can be surmounted by doggedly educating men, especially younger men, about all of the issues mentioned in this post. As Pierce points out, at least some men are quite shocked to learn the truth about some of these things, and are then receptive to our message. But they are not *naturally* so, nor are they culturally programmed to be so. Our work now is re-educating men and deprogramming them from the "women's concerns are legitimate, and men have no legitmate concerns" programming that they have received in their homes, schools and the culture at large. We *can* do that, and we need to do that as a pre-requisite, before we can have any serious hope of meaningful male political unity about these kinds of issues.

Anonymous said...

We also aren't being bankrolled by the CIA, like Gloria Steinem (who started out as a CIA snitch). If the government was subsidizing the equivalent of Ms. Magazine for men then our issues would spread much faster.

But things can change very quickly once the ball starts to roll. We have a much larger potential base than the gay rights movement, for example, and just look at the progress they've made in just a few years.

Anonymous said...

Has anybody seen this? http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009/07/09/topstory/dpt-coetzee071009.txt

This liar deliberately had sex with this guy, then a few minutes into it pulled the standard Katelyn Faber tactic of freaking out and pretending to be raped. But here's the strange part (so far this is business as usual): she was stupid enough to Email him repeatedly demanding $15,000 in exchange for not prosecuting him.

She has been convicted of failing a false police report and sentenced to a whopping 120 days in jail. (I never said that everything about this story was unusual!)

Anonymous said...

I meant "filing," but "failing" is right. Her real crime wasn't filing a false police report but making the police look bad by screwing it all up!

BeltainAmerica said...

The problem is that men in general have that urge to need to stand out, show they have it all together, draw attention to themselves as a possible mate or to be attractive to women. Therefore men will believe in their own minds that they are different, their relationships are different because the woman they are with truely know they are that special different man.

They don't even see these issues for themselves until it happens and effects them. Now of course some like myself see it from a more economic/work side first but we just think we need to try harder. It takes time and a few more hits before men start to actually come around. This is more than likely why most men activists are in their upper 30's to 50's, those are the ones who have finally been hit the hardest enough times to be shocked out of the "must stand out" mind set.

This is the real power of feminism, it is supported by young men who still think they are "special" and need to impress women on a whole. Sure the money comes from the older guys but the actual strength behind enforcing laws and making men pay is done by young men with older guys who still believe they stand out giving the orders.

Feminism can only survive in a police state and police states (which is what we have become in America)never last that long and when they explode it comes fast. So be ready gentlemen.

As has been shown men are getting hit the hardest by this economic downturn and women's groups don't care and still grab most of the money. Women's actions are moving down the list and spreading enough that in a short time it will effect the younger men and then we will see some real change.

Drex said...

I agree with what is posted here.

The problem in society is that men have been trained to surrender, and they are being told to surrender, mostly by other men.

Women are powerless without the state behind them, as their bully boy..

Men continue to feed the state system with thier labour and taxes, do you think the state does not look at them and think..

"If they ceased to work for us, we could not find a way to oppress them so effectively.. They are like the sheep who dont run into their pens when we want them to, yet, we just need to send one through the gate with the dog behind them, and the rest will follow, ready to be fleeced and slaughtered"..

Keep paying the taxes mugs!!

No matter how much you bleat, you are feeding the very beast that oppresses you with your labour and taxes!

Anonymous said...

"Has anybody seen this? http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009/07/09/topstory/dpt-coetzee071009.txt"

Men just don't get it. They will never get it. A man needs a legal contract signed BEFORE engaging in ANY sexuality with ANY woman. Because today in a woman's mind, there already is a contract, a mental contract, an attitude and belief system that she can call the sexual experience rape if she wants to. It has become a choice. It is totally her call with the legal system totally on her side (He said/She said is just a formality). Academic feminism has taught the world that a woman would never, ever, ever, ever, lie about rape. This of course is a pseudo intellectual lie! Men have to remember that 'consent' these days is always 'subject to change'. Whatever was consensual on Friday night, may turn into rape Monday morning.

Got contract?

Better yet, pass on it. Find something else to do and keep your liberty.

Anonymous said...

A contract would do nothing at all to protect you, and in fact would hurt you very badly in court if she wanted to set you up. She'll just say that she signed it because she was afraid of you.

Anonymous said...

Men support feminism largely because they don't want to look bad. Nobody likes being called a Neanderthal or being accused of being pro-rapist (if they express skepticism about a liar's rape claims). A man has little to gain and much to lose by stepping up and supporting men's rights in blatant defiance of what the feminists claim to be their goals, such as "gender equality."

But lies and bad ideas never last forever, and feminism can't survive the truth. We've all noticed that when the feminists are confronted directly they never engage in an honest debate. They scream misogynist, they make up lies about you being an abuser, they distort all of the issues so that it appears that they are advocating fairness, when in reality we all know that they're really advocating a world in which women can lie about being raped and then get off with just 120 days in jail. It's all about badmouthing men and using false accusations as leverage.

We have seen the results of feminism. Eventually the public will find out just how much harm the feminist movement has done to society, and that will be the end of it.

Renee said...

Pretty good post. I'm glad you pointed out about how it's ok for girls to hit guys but not vice versa among other things.

Women insisted on having equal access to every place men congregate, then as soon as they gained admittance they insisted on having "women-only" spaces.

This I can understand, especially if you're female and you work at a place almost exclusively male, like construction. I read a story of a woman who worked at a construction organization. Here's what she said:

This past weekend I ran a women's only workshop to teach some women how to use power tools. It was awesome, we had such a good time. 7Women came and we walked them through these awesome and exciting tools and they all said they learnt a lot. I felt really good about it and my supervisor (a male) was very impressed and respectful of the space. On Thursday of last week a male co-worker approached me about having a women only space and how he thought we were excluding males and how would we feel if he ran a mens only workshop. I tried to explain to him that I didnt see it as exclusion but rather including women into a male dominated field that can be very intimidating and wanting to facilitiate a safe space for women to learn these skills.

The week prior to this workshop was the first time in my year of service that I had a crew of all women and what a difference it made. We all had jobs and completed them, asking for help when we needed and offering encouragement to each other. We celebrated each other victories and aided when we needed to and were asked to. So different from times I have had mixed crews. Where males assumed they would be doing the "strong" work, using power tools or carrying heavy things. and the women were expected to do the cleaning up and menial tasks.


Yes this is only one example, but I think it says alot. Sometimes, women's only spaces can a place where women can support each other and be comfortable voicing problems and issues. I would have no problem if there's a males only space in a job that's prodominately female.

Renee said...

Women insist that our daughters be given the right to play on the boys' sports teams, even if it means taking spots away from boys. Boys either are banned outright, or are socially ostracized, from playing on the girls' teams. Net result: girls are afforded more opportunities to play than boys.

Here's the question: do boys want to play on girls' team? If they do then that's fine, but in our society, girls sports are still considered not as...."tough"...or is almost considered a downgrade from boy sports. There's alot of sociological baggage going on here. I think both women are men are guilty in this case.

I remember a story of a girl basketball player who joined a boy basketball team. She used to be on the girls' team, but she played so well and better than ALL the girls that she was encouraged to join the boys' team. And I think she was tall, which helped too.

Archivist said...

I'll tell you where you're going to see more men-only spaces: men want to retreat more and more to men-only social clubs -- where corporate leaders and power brokers can congregate and not fear being falsely accused of sex offenses. Now that's not exactly good for women since they are excluded from that social circle, but with the epidemic of false claims, men might have no choice.

Renee said...

I didn't want to put all my posts into one she I'm splitting them up (in case you're wondering).

When girls supposedly were behind boys in educational achievement, most men agreed there was a problem with the schools (even though there wasn't); now that it's clear boys really are behind girls in every indicia of educational achievement, women tell us the problem is the boys, the schools are just fine.

I read an article supporting this claim. I wonder, are the boys' grades getting worse or are they at the same level and the girls' grades are rising?

Archivist said...

"Here's the question: do boys want to play on girls' team? If they do then that's fine, but in our society, girls sports are still considered not as...."tough"...or is almost considered a downgrade from boy sports. There's alot of sociological baggage going on here. I think both women are men are guilty in this case."

You are missing the point entirely. The best girls want to compete with the boys and are encouraged to do so. When they do, they take a spot away from a boy. That boy probably isn't allowed to play on the girl's team -- he's likely banned outright or at the very least NOBODY wants him to play on the girls' team. So -- get it? -- every girl allowed to play on the boy's team takes a spot away from a boy who now has NOWHERE to play.

Here's the solution Renee -- what do you think? Get rid of teams by gender. Just have ONE team where all the best players get to play. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Sure, for most sports you'll have almost all boys, but how is that not fair?

BeltainAmerica said...

Renee here is an article from a few days ago about a boy trying to play on the girls team.

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Teen-Told-He-Cant-Play-Field-Hockey/Nl4IBEO6CEWbR-PLr8BuHw.cspx

I think this illustrates pretty well the double standard.

Anonymous said...

"A contract would do nothing at all to protect you, and in fact would hurt you very badly in court if she wanted to set you up. She'll just say that she signed it because she was afraid of you."

Yeah.

Banks loan money based on trust, no contracts.

Insurance companies sell you policies based on trust, no contract.

Labor Union agreements between management and workers is based on trust, no contract.

It's because of our norms regarding sexuality that we don't use contracts. We're not used to them. I'd rather have something than nothing.

Archivist said...

"I wonder, are the boys' grades getting worse or are they at the same level and the girls' grades are rising?"

Don't know -- gwallan and Norm might help me here. There's a big difference though -- girls are way ahead.

Archivist said...

Anonymous, re: contracts: do you want to know why contracts can't work? Legally? Here's the technical answer: even if there is a no oral modification clause in the contract (an NOM clause), it can always be waived. In laypersons terms: any contract can be modified after it's executed. Orally, by conduct, whatever. Trust me on this one -- you can ignore anything else I say on this blog, but trust me on that one.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes, women's only spaces can a place where women can support each other and be comfortable voicing problems and issues.

What utter garbage; this is pure hypocrisy and discrimination. We can't have men's only clubs but you can have "women's spacs?" Fuck that.

Anonymous said...

"....but trust me on that one."

Back to celibacy I guess. Darn.

Archivist said...

Re: boys playing on girls teams. So Title IX does not entitle boys to the same rights it gives girls? Um, like hell.

OK Renee, how about it? Seriously -- get rid of single gender teams. Have ONE field hockey team where all the best players get to play.

Don't tell me that's unfair to girls. Puh-lease! If you are a boy who's too short for the basketball team, does anybody care that you have a physical limitation? So why the hell do we care that girls can't compete?

Let the best players get to play.

Anonymous said...

This is very good dialogue. I get the feeling that many men are now saying what they have wanted to say for years. I will be great when we men can speak like this in public. I have attracted one man who has began saying what he really thinks and how he really feels about the unfair adavantages women have over men. He has been awakened. All it took was casual conversation and sharing credible web sites, this one is especially included in my arsenal of sites to show the truth. I would like to again thank the creator of this site and all who contribute. IMHO, there is no such thing as a small contribution. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"I'll tell you where you're going to see more men-only spaces: men want to retreat more and more to men-only social clubs -- where corporate leaders and power brokers can congregate and not fear being falsely accused of sex offenses."

Amen. Decades ago, we lost our YMCA. I am for more 'men only' health clubs, but they are very hard to find. I've been called a sexist just because I want one.

Archivist said...

Hey BeltainAmerica -- here's what Title IX blog says about the field hockey boy -- you guessed it -- it manifests discrimation against GIRLS -- and the boy is just "collateral damage." Wow:


Banning Boy from Field Hockey Underscores Discrimination and Stereotypes Against Girls

A Waynesboro, PA high school principal's decision to prohibit a male student from trying out for field hockey is being decried by some as "reverse discrimination." Reverse discrimination? Invoking Title IX, the principal told Mat Levine that (1) his presence would make the sport unsafe for the girls, (2) that parents would be jealous of his playing time, and (3) that it would take away opportunities for girls in violation of Title IX. These reasons are are all evidence of the stereotypes and discrimination that girls still must face. People still assume that girls -- even high school field hockey players -- are so weak and feeble to be threatened by one 10th grade boy. He has never played the sport before, and the article makes it sound like he is new to sports in general. Give the girls some credit -- if he makes the team as a rookie, those girls can surely hold their own. Some may suggest that by virtue of his sex, Mat has size and strength advantage. But no such advantage is suggested in the article. Odds are if Mat was a big, strong guy, he'd have already have a fall sport. Just because boys on average are bigger than girls does not automatically make Mat the biggest and strongest person on the team. Besides, if the concerns really are about size, why aren't there similar restrictions and safety concerns targeting the biggest and strongest girls on the team?

Parents jealous and overprotective of their daughters? Sounds like another manifestation of the same stereotypes discussed above.

The only valid reason to exclude Mat from playing field hockey is number three: to protect athletic opportunities for girls, who have fewer opportunities. Fine. But the solution to this problem, really, is to provide equal opportunities for girls to begin with. The principal should own up to the fact, if it is indeed the case, that the school already discriminates against girls in violation of Title IX, and that is the reason Mat can't play -- not the law. Mat is a victim of sex discrimination in this case. But he is collateral damage in the longstanding and ongoing discrimination against girls.

http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2009/07/banning-boy-from-field-hockey.html

Renee said...

Archivist,

Here's the solution Renee -- what do you think? Get rid of teams by gender. Just have ONE team where all the best players get to play. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Yeah sounds fair...but are you being sarcastic?

As ideal as that is, I am also a realist and don't think that it's that good of an idea. There just shouldn't be a subliminal impression that one is better than the other.

Women claim they are "objectified" in television commercials and programs and movies despite the fact that female characters are almost always portrayed as smart, wise, and put-upon by the selfish and oafish male characters with whom they interact.

Yes that's true, but does that make women's sexual objectification ok?

Women complain that men "objectify" them, then they proceed to subsidize the multi-billion dollar fashion and beauty industries, driven entirely by women, in order to appeal to men.

That's true for the most part. But I think there's a difference between buying lipgloss and foundation and being seen as nothing but a sexual object with boobs and a butt. But yeah, they overlap. I hope that made sense, sometimes I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words.

Renee said...

Anon,

It's not my fault men can't have men's only clubs. Personally I don't have a problem with men's only clubs. I think that at this day and age, we shouldn't associate that with sexism.

Archivist,

You see that I already responded to your question. Impatient for an answer are you?

Renee said...

As ideal as that is, I am also a realist and don't think that it's THAT good of an idea. There just shouldn't be a subliminal impression that one is better than the other.

When I said this I was taking into account biological differences, differences that I'm sure you all have constantly pointed out. But yeah, people should give it a try.

Archivist said...

Renee, this is off the top of my head, and I could give you a better response if I had more than a minute: For those who insist on viewing the world through the gender lens of radical feminism, the male attraction to the female form is a diabolical patriarchal plot to oppress and subjugate women.

The rest of the world -- the vast majority of people who haven't checked their common sense at the front door of a college's women's studies department -- understands that this attraction is a natural phenomena without which the human race likely would have become extinct long before history was recorded.

One of the great feminist mantras is that our hypermasculine culture objectifies women as sex objects. The subject is usually discussed without nuance, common sense or balance, typically devolving into a diatribe that insists that women are reduced to playthings for males. Books have been written and college course are taught on the subject, emphasizing an alleged asymmetrical power relationship that manifests itself in the so-called "male gaze."

The fact is, even most feminist heterosexual men are aroused at the sight of a woman's body. Culture does not teach boys to experience their first unintended erection; it typically occurs when he unintentionally catches a glimpse of a girl he had not previously noticed in that manner. It is entirely natural. It is not evil.

What is unnatural, what is evil, is to need to denigrate the male visual reaction to women as vile and subjugating. If the "male gaze" is dominant in motion pictures and advertisements, it is because men are more attracted to women than vice versa, and, frankly, it is because women are more interested in seeing the male perspective than in viewing the scene through some "female gaze."

Women, more than men, are the purveyors of this phenomenon. What man insisted that Michelle Obama, whose feminist credentials are beyond dispute, change into one glamorous gown after the next on Inauguration Day? You see, Mrs. Obama was adorning her natural beauty, as women have done from the beginning of time. And, sorry, ladies, she wasn't doing it for herself; she wouldn't be doing it if there were no men on the earth despite what you might say.

Here is the fact that the zeolots refuse to acknowledge. Most men do not mentally reduce the women who arouse them to the status of subhuman sex toys. It is not at all difficult for most men to respect the female object of their desire as a brilliant scientist or a gifted writer or an essential and talented caregiver, and, yes, as even smarter than they are. You see, men are capable of putting a woman's beauty in perspective and treating her as a full human being, wholly realizing that their sex appeal is but one facet of their humanity.

But putting that aside, when a man is aroused at an ad of a woman who is bearing a portion of her breasts, is that wrong?

When a man admires the talent of a great female singer on the radio, is that wrong, even though he knows only one thing about her and nothing else? He knows nothing of her intelligence or her humor or her other gift. The fact is, she might have been born with a natural singing talent without ever having to work at it, just as some women are naturally born with beauty. Is it wrong that men admire, and are entertained by something God-given, whether it be an artistic ability such as singing -- or beauty?

When a man reads a book by a female historian, he is exposed only to the intellectual side of her. He knows nothing of how sexy she is, or what a great mother she is, or how funny she can be. Is it somehow "wrong" that he knows only to admire her "historian" side?

Let's cut the nonsense of viewing these complex issues in a simplistic feminist manner, please.

Archivist said...

"It's not my fault men can't have men's only clubs."

Who said they can't? Of course they can. They can't be places of public accommodation.

Anonymous said...

As usual, we're concerned with innocent people going to prison, while the feminist is worried about maintaining her little cubbyhole of privilege at work.

Anonymous said...

"It's not my fault men can't have men's only clubs. Personally I don't have a problem with men's only clubs. I think that at this day and age, we shouldn't associate that with sexism."

Ms. Renee,

1. I didn't imply it was your fualt.
2. Correction, men can have their own health clubs, but men have to change, they have realize that choices are good.

Anonymous said...

Renee, are you a feminist?

Renee said...

Renee, are you a feminist?

No, I don't consider myself one, at least not a full-fledged one. I don't think other feminists would consider me one either.

Archivist,

That has got to be the best explainations from a male perspective I have ever read about that topic.

Archivist said...

Renee, it's one of the best explainations from ANY perspective. It's common sense.

BeltainAmerica said...

Renee seems to be very open minded and hardly a feminist or she wouldn't be here.

Every feminist I ever met just insults all men states we are pigs and leaves.

It is women like Renee we need to work with and get our message out to as much as other men.

I will give her a big HUZZAH for reading this blog and posting :)

Renee said...

I think I should expand on this.

No, I don't consider myself one, at least not a full-fledged one. I don't think other feminists would consider me one either.

Do I think they make valid points when it comes to issues in our society and the world, yes. Do I think that they made contributions in the past and present, yes. But I am also aware that some of their beliefs are flawed and that some of their good intentions resulted in negative results.

While I see eye-to-eye with feminists on some things, the same goes for MRA websites/videos/etc.

BeltainAmerica said...

I just read this opinion article by Allison Kilkenny and posted about it on my blog but had to share it here.

Read this article about the black kids being asked to leave the private club in Philly and how Ms. Kilkenny turns even this into an anti (white) male thing.

Whats funny is unless I am mistaken the manager of the club in question is a woman, and only women are even mentioned as having anything to do with the thing.

BeltainAmerica said...

oh sorry forgot the link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/philadelphia-private-swim_b_228253.html

SteveUK said...

Renee is a woman, and thinks like a typical woman.

sometimes her arguments are so illogical it just wears you down, and I somehow think thats what theyre designed to do.

Its what women do, keep talking nonsense untill the man gives up, because you know that you will be going around and around in circles for days.

and alot of it is about getting male attention.

by the way, im pretty sure that in britain now you cant stop women from joining a 'men's only' club if they want to. there are gentlemens clubs 50+years old that are now forced to open their doors to women.

Once they get a foot in, thats it, finished.

thats why I think there was such a big split in the church over women preists. its because they know that if they go down that road, its only a matter of time before women and their liberal views destroy it from the inside.

Dozer said...

Wake me up when conditions start to improve for Boys & Men.

Anonymous said...

"by the way, im pretty sure that in britain now you cant stop women from joining a 'men's only' club if they want to. there are gentlemens clubs 50+years old that are now forced to open their doors to women."

It's the power of forced inclusion over choice. I guarantee you mens' clubs are challenged by feminists for non-admission. Even though there is a women's only club just down the street. When men get together, women are threatened.

Renee said...

Awwww thanks BeltainAmerica :)

Archivist,

I guess what it comes down to is that I get tired of seeing only half-naked women in rap videos or seeing a woman in a bikini eating a hamburger. Or only seeing zoom-in shots of boobs, sweaty skin, and having my entire tv sceen be filled with butt. And don't get me started on comic books.

I decided to read up on the "male gaze" and sexual objectification, and it's amazing how different the perspectives are. Based on what you said, does sexual objectification even exist? I'm trying to see this in a different perspective.

Anonymous said...

Hey dingbat: don't read 'em then. You'll be amazed at how well that works.

Renee said...

Steve,

Renee is a woman, and thinks like a typical woman.

sometimes her arguments are so illogical it just wears you down, and I somehow think thats what theyre designed to do.


What, "typical woman thinking" = illogical? If you post comments that I disagree with and are illogical to me, then I'll post my own opinion on them. It's called a discussion. They're not designed to "wear anyone down".

Its what women do, keep talking nonsense untill the man gives up, because you know that you will be going around and around in circles for days.

and alot of it is about getting male attention.


Don't use what YOU think women do to men or impose personal experiences on me. I'm just sharing my opinions. Like I said, if I feel that a person's comment is pure nonsense and I feel strongly about it, then I'm going to say (or rather type) what I think. And PLEASE I don't do it for male attention.

Good job generalizing by the way.

Renee said...

Anon,

Awwww, resorting to insults are we...how mature. What are you 12? No, I should give 12 year olds more credit than that.

Anyway, I wanted to have a full understanding of what the "male gaze" meant.

Anonymous said...

I'll answer your question about sexual objectification, since you're being more polite than me: "sexual objectification" is just a stuffy, academic way of saying that men look at beautiful women and become aroused. The lie in the term "sexual objectification" is that this is somehow the result of social conditioning, and not just a perfectly natural reaction to a male looking at a woman's gorgeous body.

"Sexual objectification" is a term designed to belittle and pathologize normal male sexual feelings.

Archivist said...

Renee, see my previous comment. You want to simplify everything -- black and white, men = bad; women = good. Sorry, it isn't simple, and most men do not reduce women to a set of breasts. (More women reduce men to a wallet, but that's a different point).

BeltainAmerica, the Allison Kilkenny article misses the point, doesn't it? The black kids are asked to leave the private pool primarily because white women are hysterically afraid of black boys. Seriously. We all know that's the case. And some "chivalrous" males enable that hysteria by backing up the women.

Anonymous said...

In other words, if you aren't a fine piece of woman, don't worry; you won't be objectified because we won't even be looking at you.

Archivist said...

Thanks, anon. And to repeat from my earlier comment:

Here is the fact that the zeolots refuse to acknowledge. Most men do not mentally reduce the women who arouse them to the status of subhuman sex toys. It is not at all difficult for most men to respect the female object of their desire as a brilliant scientist or a gifted writer or an essential and talented caregiver, and, yes, as even smarter than they are. You see, men are capable of putting a woman's beauty in perspective and treating her as a full human being, wholly realizing that their sex appeal is but one facet of their humanity.

These gender feminist banshees would have people like Renee believe that men view women as good for two things: intercourse or masturbation.

Anonymous said...

Besides, the women who piss and moan about "objectification" aren't really mad about that. They're just angry that they aren't as good-looking as the women who are on the covers of the magazines they buy, so they pretend that those women are being exploited to make themselves feel better.

Anonymous said...

Here is another thing that feminists do all the time: pretend that men have never had any problems. For example, whining about how women in the past were pregnant so often and did so much housework -- as if the men weren't slaving away in the fields or in mines or in factories, working under dangerous conditions for twelve hours per day. When we weren't being slaughtered in wars.

Archivist said...

Anonymous, good point -- think of all the magazines like Cosmo and all the others, which usually contain a bunch of articles designed to teach young women how to snare men (usually with some sexual technique or other), have you EVER seen a good looking guy on the cover? Ever? It's always a beautiful woman. For magazines geared to women. I think the feminists ought to spend their time explaining THAT one.

Anonymous said...

So when an unattractive woman is treated poorly, it's "objectification"; when an unattractive man is treated poorly he's just a loser.

It only rains on women!

Archivist said...

"Here is another thing that feminists do all the time: pretend that men have never had any problems." That's really the entire point. All gender discussion devolves to "look how oppressed women have always been."

Yeah, we used our brute male strength to cage them and let them out only to do housework and to give us sex.

Right. That world view is nothing short than hatred for the male gender, supported by outright lies.

Zach said...

Or they show their tits with sleazy tops and then they get all pissed off that some kid is "objectifying" them with his eyes. And, wow, he might even be having a hard on, that monster.

Archivist said...

But Zach, he only learned to experience an erection from hypermasculine patriarchy that subjugates and oppresses women.

See how stupid that sounds? Because it IS stupid? Ask ten people on the street why the kid got an erection and if they're not a radical feminist they'll get it right.

Anonymous said...

Notice that it's "my body, my choice!" whenever it's about a woman, but what a man does with his own eyes is somehow their own business. They want to control freak what we look at and what we think; as usual they have all of the rights but we're just here to be henpecked.

Archivist said...

"Notice that it's "my body, my choice!" whenever it's about a woman, but what a man does with his own eyes is somehow their own business."

Exactly!

Now I am opposed to porn for other reasons, but there are studies that show increased porn consumption coincides with reduced rape. Gee -- that doesn't fit their rape culture metanarrative, does it? You know, where all typical male behavior is somewhere on a rape continuum.

Renee said...

Archivist,

How is anything I said simplifying anything? This is anything BUT simple.

Something else too. What I'm seeing here is a difference in perspectives.

most men do not reduce women to a set of breasts. (More women reduce men to a wallet, but that's a different point.

How do you know that most men don't reduce women to a set of breasts but most women reduce men to a wallet? Some women would say the exact opposite of this. I don't claim to know what most women do, nor do I claim to know what most men do. That's impossible. When I stand back and take an unbiased view of the whole thing, what do I believe?

Do I believe some men don't reduce women to a set of breasts, yes. Do I believe some do, yes also. The same goes for women in the scenerio you described.

Don't get me wrong though. I see your point. I'm not going to lie, this rocks my view on sexual objectification.

Archivist said...

"How do you know that most men don't reduce women to a set of breasts but most women reduce men to a wallet?"

That world view suggests men are little better than animals, where sexual urges dominate their lives. That view is misandry, pure and simple, unadulterated.

Do I believe some men have sex on the brain more than is healthy for them? Sure. But they are not representative of the male gender.

And by the way, objectifying men as success objects isn't all that strange, either. Evolution has taught women to find a good provider for the children she will bear. Am I suggesting women are evil for having such an instinct? No more than men are "evil" for their heightened sex drive.

Novaseeker said...

" For magazines geared to women. I think the feminists ought to spend their time explaining THAT one."

Well, the thing is feminist theory is based on Marxism, so technically it has an explanation for *everything*.

In that case, the argument would be, I think, that women are still drowning in a patriarchal culture which values them solely as sex objects, and these magazines seek to reinforce that patriarchal cultural programming to support gender roles and perpetuate the role of women as "the sex class".

Never mind that the people *running* magazines like Cosmo are feminists who can cite feminist theory chapter and verse. You have to remember, ideologues will never let the facts get in the way of their theory.

BeltainAmerica said...

I don't reduce women to a set of breasts I start building women from their breasts (well actually their legs but you get the point).

For the perfect woman there is in fact a score card and yes Breasts would be on there somewhere.

The final score can be adjusted in individual spots if one makes another of more or less value.

The final score is also different if it is a romantic build or a casual, professional...you get the picture.

Andrew said...

tl;dr

Sonja Newcombe said...

Norm: History states that over 1.5 Million were killed in the Battle of the Somme.

Over 10,000 died in Gallipoli, hundreds of thousands in The Battle of the Bulge, and millions more in Vietnam.

Anonymous said...

"What would our nations moral compass ( The Duke 88), have to say about this??

Norm said...

"A man needs a legal contract signed BEFORE engaging in ANY sexuality with ANY woman."

A video camera is a lot better, and more low-profile.

Norm said...

Renee,

whether or not boys 'want to play' on girl's teams isn't the point. The point is that men's teams should consist of men, and none of these men should be eliminated because a woman comes along.

It's patently unfair, and is also bad for the team, because teambuilding comes naturally for men (team buiding is not the same as 'networking'), along with the necessary hazing, etc; whereas having a woman in the environment often causes some of the guys to be chivalristic or protective, weakens the team bond, and forces p.c. behavior on the men.

And regardless of any anecdotal 'evidence' you want to give to the contrary, what I have stated above is scientifc fact. (See Moxon)

Norm said...

The sports team issue issue reminds me of how most people don't understand the problem with having women in combat - even after the Jessica Lynch fiasco. The same principle of team bonding applies.

In fact based on my own life experience of having all kinds of roommates over a period of decades, I find that 9 times out of 10, if you put a woman in an environment where all the others are men, sooner or later it screws everything up. Oftentimes what happens is a situation developes where the woman curries the favor of one of the men, then the two set themselves off from the rest of the group, raising feelings of resentment, and in some cases ultimately violence.

P.S. One piece of advice to anyone who rents rooms in houses - NEVER rent from an old lady, especially if she is living in the house!! Yikes!!!

Anonymous said...

If you have women in the military you also have to worry about false rape accusations and bullshit sexual harrassment claims. Even very high ranking generals have been destroyed that way.

Renee said...

You think hazing a is positive thing? What kind of hazing are you talking about?

Norm said...

"How do you know that most men don't reduce women to a set of breasts but most women reduce men to a wallet?"

That's an oddball question. If you want to know something about somethiing, ask the people who have the experience - in this case, men. What's the problem?

"How do you know the sky is blue?"

Norm said...

Renee, your question about hazing shows how pitifully little you know about team-building, especially in the military.

Hazing and related behaviors are absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the unit. It is, a part, a way of testing each guy, because if he's a fuck-up you sure the hell don't want him with you in battle. Your basic problem is that like most women, you are into the touchy-feely stuff, which is fine as long as you don't try and use that manner of thinking where it is not appropriate.

This has actually weakened our military - I know that from experience. Add this to the 'pregnant navy' syndrome, and overseas guys being shamed by their wives and the media for 'not being around for the kids', and you have a pretty bad situation.

The reason you haven't heard about it is because even the military/pentagon must play by fascist feminist p.c. rules. People who say things like, "but I haven't heard of any wars being lost" sound like complete uninformed dunces.

Norm said...

Hazing is also a method of each man knowing and asserting his place in the male dominance hierarchy (DH) within a group. Scietific experiments have shown that when you have a group of workmen who don't know their relative ranks in the DH, total chaos ensues.

Since militaries are run as hierarchies, it is absolutely crucial not to screw up the DH.

Michaelquerty said...

Change in perspective will most likely only get going once mothers start making noise about their sons. Because then it will be important.

Anonymous said...

Zach said...
" Or they show their tits with sleazy tops and then they get all pissed off that some kid is "objectifying" them with his eyes. And, wow, he might even be having a hard on, that monster."

Castrate him, peel him like an onion,boil him in oil, hang him high and, burn him alive! How dare he rape her with his eyes! (sarcasm)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
" In other words, if you aren't a fine piece of woman, don't worry; you won't be objectified because we won't even be looking at you. "

Wrong. The wise mem amongst us know there is more to a woman than her looks/appearance.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
" If you have women in the military you also have to worry about false rape accusations and bullshit sexual harrassment claims. Even very high ranking generals have been destroyed that way. "

True but, we already have women in the military.

Anonymous said...

Yes we male servicemembers do have to worry about those things. Back in 1994I witnessed a young soldier ,who had just completed 13 weeks of AIT and would have graduated the next day, have his entire life destroyed by a false rape accusation. If I remember correctly, he was sent to Ft Leavenworth U.S. penitentiary. He may have been sentenced to a life term. The female soldier who falsely accused him, was given the option of an early and honorable discharge with pay, for life or, continue her training and serve her legal obligation to the U.S. Army.

Anonymous said...

Even though there was ony proof that the two of them engaged in consensual sex. Once she said rape, that was it for him.

Anonymous said...

"Yes we male servicemembers do have to worry about those things. Back in 1994I witnessed a young soldier ,who had just completed 13 weeks of AIT and would have graduated the next day, have his entire life destroyed by a false rape accusation. If I remember correctly, he was sent to Ft Leavenworth U.S. penitentiary. He may have been sentenced to a life term. The female soldier who falsely accused him, was given the option of an early and honorable discharge with pay, for life or, continue her training and serve her legal obligation to the U.S. Army.'


Anon says..yes it seems to me the older generation of males are feeding off this " I'm the real protector of women perversion" to the degree they are enabling false rape acussations that are ruining innocent men/boys lives.
I feel these "perverts" should be held accounteable.

Anonymous said...

And that's why the feminist love false accusations! The real issue for them really is lying about it, not reporting the real thing if it happens. They want every woman to have the nuclear option -- an option which men can never exercise against women due to the accident of biology. They want to be able to terrorize men with the threat of a false rape accusation, just like a nuclear armed state can lord it over a country that doesn't have nukes.

Renee said...

Norm,

That's an oddball question. If you want to know something about somethiing, ask the people who have the experience - in this case, men. What's the problem?

How many men did Archivist ask? To me when he used the word "most", he impied that he knew what most of the male population thought and how they behaved. That's basically impossible.

About hazing. Everytime the media brings it up, it has always been negative. In this case it took place in schools and fraternities/sororities. I've never got the impression of team building in these cases but rather it seemed like an initiation. But hey I've never witnessed a hazing, nor am I in the military or a guy. That's why I asked what "kind" of hazing you were talking about.

What does science say about hazing and women?

Anon,

Even though there was ony proof that the two of them engaged in consensual sex. Once she said rape, that was it for him.

I'm just geniunely curious so don't jump down my throat, but how do you know it was a false accusation? Isn't evidence of rape and evidence of consensual sex similar sometimes (I'm not a cop so I don't know)? Like I said don't jump down my throat.

Renee said...

I just read this quote again and I understand why he phrased the question he did.

That world view suggests men are little better than animals, where sexual urges dominate their lives. That view is misandry, pure and simple, unadulterated.

The Adolescent 46 Year Old said...

I'm reminded a bit of the Paul Calf quote: "I'm a feminist... well, you've got to be these days if you want a shag."

For those unfamiliar with Paul Calf, he was the comic creation of Steve Coogan)

But seriously, this is an excellent blog. Definitely one to check daily. Good work chaps!

scott said...

Renee queeries

"I'm just geniunely curious so don't jump down my throat, but how do you know it was a false accusation? "

Scott says.. There are ways to get women to tell the truth...like threaten them with life in prison, with no possibility of parole..if they are in fact making a false accussation of rape against an innocent man. Give them a few hours to think it over, before taking their sworn statements...and then investigate for the truth. If women and girls are knowingly and willfully making false rape accussations, then send them to jail...for it will deter other false rape accussations.
This procedure is used in all law enforcement matters...ACCEPT RAPE AND FALSE ACCUSSATIONS OF RAPE...as these areas there is the gender feminist / law enforcement propaganda Allinace that perverts the course of justice, and does not tell us the truth.

Anonymous said...

If somebody says they were abducted by a UFO and anally probed, and they offer no evidence -- how do you KNOW it isn't true? Well, I guess it must be true then!

Renee said...

I see what you're saying Anon. On the other hand, one can say how do they know it IS true without any evidence. I guess it comes down to how well you know the person, and I mean REALLY know that person.

After I posted this question I came to a realization. A person who says that someone they knew was raped isn't really questioned as to how they knew it happened. I admit I never questioned it either. Anon, I even though I was honestly curious, if the question offended you, I'm sorry.

Anonymous said...

There is so much truth to this post -- I notice the author starts with boys, then with courtship and marriage, then workplace stuff and then general stuff and ends on rape. I could point out 20 or more that I've never heard before but that are so true:

"Women harshly brand young men hesitant about marriage as commitment-phobes; when those same women later end their marriages on a whim or because they aren't feeling 'fulfilled,' they don't see how their own 'commitment' is at all pertinent to the issue."

Point: women really have absconded with the language to gain moral superiority over men, and even men are buying it!

Keep up the great work, fellas.

Anonymous said...

The west has been feminized and therefore it will fall.
China is a masculine country and thet is why they will rule the world/

Norm said...

"What does science say about hazing and women? "

Women have only a very weak dominance hierarchy compared to men, and generally the female DH applies to only the very few girls at the top in a given environment - generally the few most physically attractive women. This is very typical in, for example, high schools. The competetiton at the top is cut-throat.

I'm not sure about any female hazing as such, but it's always been my theory that a lot of 'initiation rights' are just ways for sadists to get off, depending on the spirit in which it's done. That applies to both men and women. Psychological hazing can be as bad as physical, and women are generally more psycholically violent than men. (According to Erin Pizzey)

Norm said...

should say "psychologically violent..."

Anonymous said...

Anon

" says..yes it seems to me the older generation of males are feeding off this " I'm the real protector of women perversion" to the degree they are enabling false rape acussations that are ruining innocent men/boys lives.
I feel these "perverts" should be held accounteable. "

The only older males I see who have that mindset are the ones who swallowed the feminist mantra regarding rape(s) and those with a mindset that makes them ask; "what if that were my daughter"?

Not all older males have that mindset. Some of us ask ourselves, when we hear of false rape accusations,ext., " what if that were my son"? Just as every woman is someone's daughter, every man is someone's son.

This may be difficult for some young men to understand. I ,for one, do not want younger men to have to go through what we older men have been going through.

Anonymous said...

Renee said...


" I'm just geniunely curious so don't jump down my throat, but how do you know it was a false accusation? Isn't evidence of rape and evidence of consensual sex similar sometimes (I'm not a cop so I don't know)? Like I said don't jump down my throat. "

Our drill sergeant overheard the female soldier discussing the incident to another female soldier in her class. platoons are reffered to as classes during ait. The female soldier made it clear to her fellow soldier that she wasn't going to be getting into trouble for having sex. She felt sorry for the male soldier but,as she was reported to have said, that was him. The cleaning closet was located on the second floor, the cq office was located downstairs but close enough so that if the female soldier was being raped, the cq nco would have heard her cries. Also , no weapons were/are allowed during what is called initial entry training. Ait is the last step in this training. Nothing that a soldier can use to hurt or kill themselves,or another soldier, was/is allowed. There was nothing to keep her from fighting him off or calling for help.

Anonymous said...

scott said...



" Scott says.. There are ways to get women to tell the truth...like threaten them with life in prison, with no possibility of parole..if they are in fact making a false accussation of rape against an innocent man. "

Only recently have false rape accusations,along with other false accusations began, to get notice in the U.S. Army (and maybe the other branches of our military(?)). In 1994,the U.S. Army saw any female, who claimed to have been raped by a male soldier as a rape victim. The same held true, and to a degree hold true when accusations for sexual assault and sexual harassment were/are.

Anonymous said...

Renee said...

" I was honestly curious, if the question offended you, I'm sorry. "

No offense taken. Learning is part of the human experience.

Anonymous said...

Essay: Why most men tolerate feminist misandry

Why most men tolerate feminist misandry
by Jeffrey Asher
7th July 2009


Over twelve years of teaching "Men’s Lives," I also wondered why majority-male legislatures, judiciaries and mainstream media editors, capitulated to and enforced feminist politics and jurisprudence.

Above all, men are powerfully driven by sexual attraction to women. Men easily rationalize their sexual need for women as based in intellectual and moral equality.

Male protection of women and children - at the risk of men’s safety and lives - over millennia of social evolution, allowed our species to survive. I suspect that imperative is as integral to male brains and hormones, as the need for and care of children is integral to women.

Men in power did not accede to feminists because of sexual opportunism alone – women remain second to one in that category. When feminists – confused as representing women – called out to men for ‘equality,’ men entrenched quotas and feminist jurisprudence. A man shamed by a woman promptly takes corrective action, to ‘act like a Man’.

Most men did not expect feminists, to lie. Nor did men account for female emotional volatility. Men did not expect feminists to sabotage the family. Men did not realize that the driving force behind feminism was activist female self-loathing and lesbian misandry, deliberately alienating girls and women from heterosexuality and the family.

Donna Laframboise in "The Princess at the Window," observed that in the feminist movement, the lunatic fringe had taken over the mainstream. Feminists terrorized women against men with abuse, assault and rape agitprop. And yes, too many men remain self-loathing feminists.

I suspect the above partially explains the reluctance of most men in power to oppose feminist opportunism, even after their own marriages are destroyed and their children torn asunder.

Sanford Braver, "Divorced Dads" (Putnam 1998 ISBN 0-87477-862- X): "A 1998 Gottman study (J. Marriage & Family, 1998) instructed: " ... men should forget all that psychobabble about active listening and validation. If you want your marriage to last for a long time, just do what your wife says." This discovery coincides with "... the loss of power in marriage that men have experienced over the last 40 years." (Page 140).

At the end of the day, most men hope to return home, to their wife and children, whom they love. That is a powerful restraint against male denunciation of feminist family destruction.

Anonymous said...

Tori Amos: What I know about men

'Violence and seduction are a ticking bomb. I think it goes back to the powerlessness some men feel. They feel so emasculated that they get angry or seek attention from a place that they shouldn't. For a man to get off on a woman screaming, the wires have got crossed somewhere. When you're dealing with men with real power they only want you if you're willing. It's about the dance between the male and female. Real power is about exchange, not subordination. For some people a powerful man is a bully. He's powerful because he scares people. And I would say that's not a powerful man - that's an intimidating man, a man who uses intimidation tactics. A powerful man is a man that knows who he is and doesn't need to manipulate people to get what he wants.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/jul/05/tori-amos-relationships-men

Norm said...

Whoever tries to blame this on 'older men' has his (or her) head in a very dark region. Name one influential MRA who is not a Baby Boomer (hint: it is not Warren Farrell, or Glenn Sacks, or Ned Holstein, or Stephen Baskerville, or Paul Nathanson, or...)

Come to think of it, this might be the same turkey who tried to put this load of crap over on Sacks' board.

Norm said...

Amos has me totally baffled by her statement - it sounds like she was high when she made it.

She comes from a screwed up family so it is not surprising (I knew her from church in the 70's)

Renee said...

Well was the quote made after she was raped? It didn't look like she was generalizing the male population. I can see what she's talking about.

Just Surfed on In.. said...

Renee's comments are interesting. As I read further and further down, these comments were starting to get really dry and repetitive until she showed up.

SteveUK said...

Just Surfed on In.. said...

Renee's comments are interesting. As I read further and further down, these comments were starting to get really dry and repetitive until she showed up.


really? it sounds like a lot of waffle to me.

I find it quite odd how you praise waffle, when there have been so many other excellent comments in this thread (not least the article itself).

Could the real reason for your praise be that renee is a woman? and you as a young man feel the (unwarrented) need to protect her from the bad men?

Then theres the getting layed aspect ofcourse..

Pierce Harlan said...

Thank you, SteveUK. I am astounded that some women come on this board and after a time it seems their sole purpose is to educate the ignorant men. I can only say this: as far as I can tell, the "men" aren't in unison on a whole lot of things themselves, so making men the enemy seems either paranoid or misandric.

Just Surfed on In.. said...

"Could the real reason for your praise be that renee is a woman? and you as a young man feel the (unwarrented) need to protect her from the bad men?"

Nah.. Aren't online forums supposed to have debate? This forum seems to have a low tolerance for anyone who remotely disagrees with what everyone else thinks. (even if the articles themselves raise good a lot of points.) I wouldn’t doubt if your asses censor shit too. Let’s find out. :P

Renee said...

Could the real reason for your praise be that renee is a woman? and you as a young man feel the (unwarrented) need to protect her from the bad men?

Could it be he simply thinks my comments are interesting like he said? You're thinking too much into it. Like he said, it's a forum.

Pierce Harlan said...

"This forum seems to have a low tolerance for anyone who remotely disagrees with what everyone else thinks."

You mean unlike the feminist sites any comment suggesting the possibility of false rape claims? Go back and you'll see comments I've left up on this site calling for me to brutally raped by some of our enlightened, liberal, tolerant feminist friends.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Tori Amos's comments aren't that bad. She says that SOME men get their wires crossed -- which is the opposite of claiming that all men are rapists. She says that men who have REAL power don't rape; they seek a fair exchange with others. Which is true! This contradicts the feminist implication that ALL male power is equal to rape.

It would be a step forward if the feminists would all agree that rape is only something that a small minority of men do and that male power in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

Her comments even help to formulate an argument in favor of patriarchy -- because if all men had the real power that she describes, then none of them would do horrible things.

Norm said...

Hey surfer, the tide's headed back out - can you follow?

Norm said...

"I wouldn’t doubt if your asses censor shit too."

hey stupid, this is a blog, it's not a newspaper or TV network. The owner can put whatever he wants on it.

Norm said...

Pierce, if I were you I'd stop this guy in his tracks right now. though I know that's unsolocited advice:)

Anonymous said...

What Surfer said about censoring posts is ridiculous. This blog offers tremendous free speech compared to any comparable feminist blog, where MRAs are routinely banned, with random pre-banning comments being posted afterwards out of context so that the feminists can attack without having to allow anybody to respond. That's how they play it.

Honestly, I hate to say it -- but quite a few MRA sites also ban MRAs who don't "get with the program!" This blog really does allow visitors to have their own opinions.

Norm said...

" quite a few MRA sites also ban MRAs who don't "get with the program!"

I'm surprised to hear that. Of all the nine or ten I've used, I've never seen it. What exactly do you mean by "not go with the program?"
Guys claiming to be MRA's who get on those boards and then continually bring up race, class or other issues, or engage in any other extremely obnoxious and offensive behaviour - well...I'd probably ban them too.

Like I said above, a blog is a blog. For example, I myself have a blog where I analyze movies and music productions. If some nut attempted to comment something like, "hey, why haven't you mentioned the degrading treatment of women in Pulp Fiction?!" I would NOT publish the comment (I moderate all of them).

My site is to remain ideology-free, and since it is MY site, I can do wetf I want to do with it. That in no way constituted censorship. Same for Pierce.

SteveUK said...

Untill a few months ago I used to post comments on a British owned blog, which deals with feminism (I wont name it).

I stopped posting there (reluctantly), after I commented on why I thought the fascist BNP (British National Party) had done so well in the recent elections.

The blog owner then went on to publicly accuse me of being a member of the BNP, simply for giving my observations and thoughts on what was happening in Britain today, and he decided not to post a number of my comments which in my view were perfectly reasonable posts.

Just to give you an idea, my argument was that white men in Britain feel sidelined by multiculturalism, and also by the anti-male feeling in the country, made worse by the current feminised labour government.

What I was saying is that I can understand why some of these men maybe turning to the ultra-right wing BNP, and thats because the mainstream British partys are ignoring them and even antagonizing them with anti-male measures.

I further put forward the argument that the recent success of the BNP is as much anger at women and the feminisation of the country as it is at immigrants, because men are not allowed to show their frustration with women here, so a certain amount of that anger gets displaced onto immigrants, because its socially acceptable.

Reasonable comments I thought, but the blog owner called me a neo-nazi.

The fact is, most men in Britain today dont have the balls they were born with, and they wont even engage in debate. that particular blog owner is afraid to acknowledge that there is a problem brewing in europe with ultra right wing fascist partys, and the reasons why that is happening. But censorship of the problem only makes it worse.

I do agree however that somethings dont have a place on certain blogs, the jewish thing with russell for instance imo isnt appropriate for this blog, he should perhaps look to another blog to discuss that, because its too far removed from the aims here.

I've wandered off myself a little bit in this post, but the fact that men can actually talk freely on this board, up to a very reasonable point, I think is great.

Pierce Harlan said...

Norm, thanks for your comments, as always. Your knowledge of these issues is important to this blog. SteveUK, thanks also.

We do very little moderation because the volume of comments, at times, overwhelms us. There are many comments I don't agree with that I don't take issue with because I would spend all my time doing that. Sometimes, as occurred on the Duke lacrosse post last week, a commentator will start saying things that go against our core values (e.g., suggesting that "something" might have happened in the house with the stripper) that we can't leave it unchallenged. That's the sort of irresponsible, misandric thing feminist blogs routinely post and it's the reason we started this blog.

Anonymous said...

SteveUK said

" I've wandered off myself a little bit in this post, but the fact that men can actually talk freely on this board, up to a very reasonable point, I think is great. "

I also think so. CHEERS (B)!

Anonymous said...

" it's the reason we started this blog. " Thanks Pierce (b) Cheers!

Renee said...

This is something that I've been thinking about for a few days now.

I have read articles concerning a rape crime or someone tells a personal story about being rape, and see a few posts going on a tangent about false accusations. It's equivilant of me talking about nothing but rape and totally disregarding the article about a false rape accusation and the victims of it, which I have never done...*tries to remember all the comments she posted on here*. And if I do mention rape, it's either as a question or I relate it to the article at hand.

What I'm saying here is that there is a time and place, and respectable ways in going about discussing false accusations when the topic is rape and vice versa on boards like this.

That's not to say that some blogs don't delete resonable comments unfairly, or that I'm talking about you all here. It's just that some commentors don't know how to use some...I don't know...tact and respectability when commenting.

So sometimes it can be actual intolerance and other times it can be simply that the readers were offended by a particular comment.

This is why I'm glad this website exists, so this topic can be fully discussed and victims of false rape accusations can be represented.

Yeah...I hope that made sense. I was trying not to type out a whole book but at the same time I feel that I didn't explain my point well.

Anonymous said...

SteveUK: boy, I hear you about why some men are turning to fascism in the UK. I think that a huge factor in Hitler's rise to power was fear of communism and resentment at having a liberal agenda rammed down the throats of German men, especially vets. You have to let men voice their frustrations in a legitimate way or some of them will turn to illegitimate means.

One of my hopes for the men's rights movement is getting men to focus on key issues in a way that is productive, instead of just having unfocused anger and not identifying the specific problems.

Renee said...

One of my hopes for the men's rights movement is getting men to focus on key issues in a way that is productive, instead of just having unfocused anger and not identifying the specific problems.

I totally agree.

Pierce Harlan said...

If you go back through this site you will see that we are completely respectful of actual rape victims. Actual rape and false rape accusations are two wholly separate things. Women who've experienced the first generally loathe and detest women who practice the latter. Rape victims and false rape claim victims, on the other hand, often have much in common and it would serve both well to join forces.

The difference between our site and a feminist site is this: we don't deny that rape is a real problem. Feminist sites deny that false rape claims are a real problem.

Renee said...

I feel you Pierce.

The Archivist said...

Renee,

In regards to the people who bring up false accusations on a rape thread.

If you haven't already, stop by Glenn Sacks' site, and take a look at any of the false rape accusation threads there, and invariably, you will see Georgia Girl, Jeana, Ampersand, and a couple of others come in and do just the opposite. They try to make it all about rape, and not the false accusation in the thread. So it isn't just confined to the other side of the story.

The fact is, false rape accusations, and true rapes are the opposite side of the same coin. Reduce the number of false accusations through harsher punishments, so those who truly have been raped can be seen as more beleivable, and we can get rapists off the street.

The biggest problem you will see with that, is that the 'rape industry' isn't really concerned with reducing the number of true rapes. They are interested in funding, and keeping the ball rolling in their favor, so they continue to push the 'rape culture' BS, and minimize the true number of false accusations, to keep that money rolling in.

If they were truly worried about reducing the number of rapes, they would push investigation and treatment of the root causes of why people rape and falsely accuse of the same. As soon as that happens, you will see a dramatic turnaround in the numbers of both.

Until then, it is just a dog and pony show to increase funding.

slwerner said...

Renee - ”I have read articles concerning a rape crime or someone tells a personal story about being rape, and see a few posts going on a tangent about false accusations.”

Glenn Sacks has a (sometime) poster at his site who tends to do just the reverse. She goes by the name “Georgia Girl”, and seems to post primarily to threads about false rape accusations and injustices.

Her tendency is to try to change the discussion into one about the evils of rape instead.

Her story (which I once believed, until she started spewing on about her “having recovered the memories she'd had supposedly blocked out”) is that she, as an innocent naive young college women accepted an invite to a frat house where she contends that one of the members got her drunk (she apparently took no part in the drinking herself:)) and raped her.

When she first started regaling readers (ad nauseam) about her ordeal of watching her attacker go unpunished and having authorities refuse to believe her, I got the distinct impression that she had report the attack, and (as she seemed to be implying) the man's economic status, combined with an overall attitude of permissiveness towards male sexuality in the 50's, was the reason she didn't get justice.

I actually fell for her shtick.

Later, I can to learn that she had not reported the alleged attack immediately, but rather after many years (it might have been almost 20 years – her website seems to have disappeared!), and only then after she'd managed to recover her repressed memories of the event.

Well, anyway, I went off on that tangent to make the point that those efforts to derail or redirect discussions are quite frequent – and work both ways (WRT the MRA POV).

On Glenn's site, just as we see on this one, there was never a suggestion that rapes didn't happen, nor that they weren't a serious problem. It was just that GG always seemed to want to contend that men shouldn't be discussing and decrying false rape accusations until such time as we had first “busted our asses off” and done more to prevent rapes.

As Peirce points out, actual rape victims and actual false rape victims share a common bond as fellow victims – and discussing false rape accusations in no way negatively impacts on the issue of rape.

That said, I do agree with you that interjecting comments about false rape allegations into a discussion of rape/rape victims is inappropriate and unappreciated – just like those who demand “Well, what a bout real rapes?” in a discussion about false rape allegations/false rape allegation victims.


On an entirely unrelated note:

Some time back the issue of the harm done to young men by having older women rape them came up on another forum (Novaseeker's blog).

This past weekend I got an example of how such harm pans-out.

My wife was working on the Pre-sentencing report for a man she recently convicted of raping his teenage step-daughter. Among the items brought out in his psychological evaluation was that his first sexual experience was a age 15 – with a 28-year old women. His evaluation went on to strongly suggest that this was why the man seemed to be incapable of normal sexual functioning in relationships and incapable of distinguishing what was appropriate vs. inappropriate.

And to think, there are those who still continue to contend that older women raping boys doesn't harm them, and that the boys only enjoy it. The man in this case will be spending much of the rest of his life in prison. Yeah, that fun-loving sex he “enjoyed” with an adult women didn't harm him in any way, now did it? {Sorry! that one's been eating away at me for days now - I needed to vent it out]

Anonymous said...

And if you're overly rude to these feminist trolls, your comments stop appearing on Glenn's site. Which is why I don't like the way Glenn runs his blog.

Pierce Harlan said...

slwerner, great story about boys who are statutorily raped. I guess the common feeling is, if they ejaculate, they must be blissful about it. Not so when you're talking about boys and older women.

Norm said...

Another factor to consider is that an MR blog has no incumbent duty to listen to the sob stories or anger venting of someone who has been raped. Like georgia girl on Glenn's blog, they truly are complete nuts for going to an MR blog to get their therapy, and to 'educate' the men on the board about rape. (I think jeana is just mainly there to create chaos and divert the subject. In other words, she's a troll.)

I feel like I have a 'gut' understanding of certain psychological issues (without being a psychologist), but the movivation for doing that particular thing these women are doing has me completely baffled.

btw, Glenn IS kind of a chivalrist. On the other hand, he has only banned two people in the history of his blog (he stated that in a comment about one year ago). I think it's gotten a little more p.c. since it has become part of Fathers and Families.

slwerner said...

Norm - "Like georgia girl on Glenn's blog, they truly are complete nuts for going to an MR blog to get their therapy, and to 'educate' the men on the board about rape."

I see that she's at it yet again - demanding that we all forget about the Duke Lacrosse false rape case. (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3975#comment-960710)

Anonymous said...

I didn't get a chance to read all of the comments, but did anybody mention this little bit of info?

Women make over 85% of the consumer purchases in the United States.

http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/women-make-over-85-of-the-consumer-purchases-in-the-united-states/

The Archivist said...

slwerner,

I like your comment there, and I agree, but I think for GG it goes deeper. I think that she is bothered by the fact that few (if any) on Glenn's site believe her account of what happened to her anymore. 40+ years after the fact, no proof (other than her 'recovered' memories), and her say so. That is all the 'proof' she has that something has happened. And now, even her website about it is gone.

She isn't the center of attention regarding her rape claim, and when it comes to false rape accusations, the attention is a primary factor in why they level such charges.

The Duke case underscores the disbelief in her own story, so she would rather it isn't brought up, so she can regain some credibility, or at least get someone new to the situation to empathize with her.

If she didn't try to derail the discussion every time false accusations come up, she would be much more sympathetic. As it is, I am indifferent to her at this point, have told her that on Glenn's site, and that probably is more hurtful than anything else I could do (even though I wasn't intentionally trying to hurt her).

E. Steven Berkimer

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I've been thinking exactly the same away about women. I truly believe that we must not let them win because It's like no one is saying anything. My first steps are to not have anything to do with women. Once I stopped needing to have sex and became 'asexual' I began to see women for what they really are; the resource wanting, devious attention-seekers they really are.

My point is: the only weakness us men have is that of wanting and desiring sex; if we can rid ourselves of that factor, we'll win! It's hard but you must resist the temptation, concentrate on yourself and your notions of what an ideal world should be - a world in which we are not walked over like dirty carpets...

Tony