I've been studying a bit into criminal pathologies lately and came across a some very interesting information.. In todays culture, inundated with misandry one could be led to believe that men are born monsters.
Did you know that over 98 per cent of the men in the United States today have never been convicted of any violent crime or served time in prison? That, even though the U.S. imprisons a higher percentage of its citizens than any other nation, over 98 per cent of our men have never been convicted of rape, child molestation, assault, battery, breaking and entering, or any kind of violence? And almost half of the men who do land in prison are convicted of non-violent crimes (usually drug possession)?
-(A thanks to Robert W.)
Many young men and women have no idea that men are good. I wish no hell like I endured in my Women's Studies class in college on any of my readers though I can say that the experience emboldened my spirit and made me think.
I set out to find the answer, to prove that I as a man am not a monster and that somehow marriage was beneficial to women. (Though marriage was not abolished as early feminists sought to do, they simply changed the laws to no fault divorce, default female child custody and the forceful transference of the the male provider role to women outside of marriage through alimony (woman support) and child support)Essentially the idea was to reduce female liabilities in marriage to zero, displace her liabilities upon the shoulders of the man making marriage obsolete & superfluous at best.
"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed... I was in a class of nine and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives… This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing. It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."
- Doris Lessing, 2001
So this is for you Doris and those little boys who were unable to defend themselves:
I had no idea that men fought wars to gain territory and resources and that male animals mark off territory and resources as well..Did you know that men have twice as many sweat glands per square inch than women do? I realized that it was a beautiful thing that all the lines drawn between countries were drawn in the blood of men. I realized that women are the unappreciative benefactors of male male competition and the fruits of male labor and sacrifice. Then I discovered a little more about the male brain and reward circuits we have for doing so!
WOW upon further investigation I found that male chimpanzees conduct warfare as well. I even discovered that ants invade and attack other ant nests. May the most healthy, resourcefully successful and therefore numerically superior ant civilization win! Looking further I realized that many if not most male animals are born with weapons and horns or at very least compete in a different way, a way which can be extremely violent among each other. I've seen them fight and use these weapons as well!
I realized that I was not alone, that I am not a horrible person like my Women's Studies class said I was (Said I was 2). I found that I was different, I was a man and this was ok! I learned that being a man was something that women did not understand and from the words of feminist science they did not accept, like or even hated.
What angered me most was the impending danger I felt to my love of women. Not only did I become emboldened by my need to defend myself but also by my need to defend my view of women. I became afraid of hating women and was not willing to accept this. Men's and Father's Rights was my way out, understanding myself as a man was my saving grace.. I was not so sure the other males in the class were able to save themselves... I wanted to save them to. I didn't know all the answers at the time but I knew that the body of academic knowledge that women thinkers had amassed about me was a lie.. You see, The class was called "The Psychology of Women" and was hosted in the Science wing of my college..
This was about 5 years ago. Naturally, being fresh out of high school, I was nieve, trusting and impressionable. I thought I was in a Science class at the time and it blew me away that this is what modern science thinks about men.
The course was filled with ideological inferences. Though many tenets of feminist thought were not always stated directly and implicitly they were unequivocally alluded to and inferred.
Naturally, if the feminist saying "All men are potential rapists" was true that could lead to the saying that "All women are potential prostitutes" as true. I refuse to believe such vitriol. I refuse to view humanity in such a light. I would like to champion my beloved fellow men and and beloved women to stand on a higher moral plain, a higher standard for intellectual discourse and understanding.
Again, this is for you Doris, thank you for defending the honor of men:
"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."
Source: The Canadian Children's Rights Council
http://www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx
Posts
43 minutes ago
28 comments:
One of my friends recently became a police officer.
He was told, "3 out of 100 people are criminal".
The reason he was told this: Many police officers - since they only deal with criminals, start to see crime everywhere (whether it exists or not). That is why police officers are routinely told, that 3% of the population is actually criminal.
I would say this re-enforces the 2% figure you have - and this is in America of course - and it counts everybody - not just men...
Wow, what a great comment..thanks ScareCrow...
What book are those cartoons from? That looks absolutely ridiculous. Hmmmmm who invented both email and computers so that you could try to "communicate with dolphins"? Oh yeah, some man who only likes blowing things up.
I'll have to get the book for ya but I believe it's called The Psychology Of Women. My books are in storage at the moment. Unbelievable what they say in there huh!
My Women's Studies class had me red in the fact with anger.. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that my parents were worried about me..
I consider myself very fortunate to have found an outlet for what I endure not only in this class but in my culture. I've seen the helplessness and devastation of my father, my brother and other men, I know full well what women can do when they leave you.... I will not let that happen to me. I would rather not be a husband and father. I would rather not marry, there is not reason to anymore..
I have a suspicion that the Marriage 2.0 laws that women implemented are based on the notion of Romantic Love as the binding force.
Look at the graphs on my blog, there was not simply a critical threshold of women waiting to "escape their oppressors" as the graph is consistent and exponential.
Imagine for a moment that you as a man had no obligation, risk or liability for leaving a woman AND you can take her children, then imagine that she has to support you financially when you do leave her AND EVEN IN CASES OF NO FAULT...
Why have we taken away all female obligations and liabilities to men and family? Why have we done this?
Women, through their implementation of Marriage 2.0 laws placed responsibility and liability for their happiness and romantic love in the hands of men...If a woman is not pleased she can walk away..
Women wanted to make it so men have no such free choice. Marriage law is one sided, selfish and wrong.. I WILL NEVER SIGN SUCH A ONE SIDED CONTRACT WITH A WOMAN...I WILL NEVER ALLOW MY POTENTIAL FUTURE CHILDREN TO BE TAKEN FROM MY LIFE.....In fact I am afraid of what I might do if this were to happen. I don't want that...
Complacency often takes a rapid nose-dive when these smug girls hit the wrong side of 30, having frittered away the best part of their lives in a never-ending party. Its very hard to be complacent with a raddled face, saggy boobs, a droopy waistline and booty that could call pudding her sworn sister. Where sits complacency then? Trust me, no man will ever want to defend a woman ever again. Not after 40+ years of being told he's irrelevant. I've said it before, I'll keep on saying till the day I expire or they muzzle me.
It is interesting how you pick and choose statistics and explain them in ways that support your arguments. It is also interesting that you envision society as two mutually exclusive and antagonistic elements, and think that the current marriage laws were formed only by females. You really ought to graduate college before trying to educate others.
To anon, think again and study the facts before you comment...maybe check out the link entitled
"as early feminists sought to do"
Read on to find out how women are now a separate socio-political class away from men. Understand that yes indeed it was women who lobbied to change divorce law. Understand that it is women who initiate 70% of divorce and we now have a 40% single woman birth rate..Understand that men have no rights in marriage and thus the contract of divorce....
Understand a lot has changed since your "liberation"
To anon, You Say: "It is interesting how you pick and choose statistics and explain them in ways that support your arguments."
LOL, what part of 98% of men have never been convicted of a crime or spent time in jail do you not understand?
This is not a statistic full of correlating variables to "explain them in ways that support my arguments." IT IS A HARD FACT.
THE LAST STUDY AND STATISTICS I LISTED ARE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES WHICH WERE INDEPENDENTLY DUPLICATED!
In case you are not aware this is modern scientific method.
Anonymous March 15, 2010 8:06 PM said...
"It is interesting how you pick and choose statistics and explain them in ways that support your arguments."
LOL Feminists can be counted on to recognise these tactics. Just like looking in a mirror.
"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all".
Bwec provided statistics relating only to US rates of imprisonment and to the proportions of male sex offenders who were previously victims themselves.
The US incarceration rates are easily confirmed.
I've been involved in activism and advocacy relating to sexual assault since the late seventies and am now on a board which manages a crisis and counselling service. I was told years ago by a prison counsellor that most male rapists of women had been molested by a woman when younger. I was originally sceptical. Years later I harbour no doubts that he was correct. Researchers confirm it every time they look.
"It is also interesting that you envision society as two mutually exclusive and antagonistic elements..."
That wasn't the case until the past half century and you really need to be complaining to your sisters about that. It's been a war that one side - men - didn't turn up for. This is now changing. The backlash, predicted for decades, is now gathering pace. As a feminist(assuming) you'd be wise to not get in their way. Many of them won't be taking prisoners.
"...and think that the current marriage laws were formed only by females."
No. They were formed to benefit women however. When the major changes were made in the seventies they were absolutely necessary because divorce was genuinely devastating economically for women. Unfortunately they were based on a premise that wives/women didn't, or couldn't, earn an income. This is no longer the case or, at least, shouldn't be.
"You really ought to graduate college before trying to educate others."
You really need to have more than a college diploma to be educating me.
I am very interested in what you learned in your Women's Study Class. I am currently taking one, and I think we might not be on the same page because we are learning different concepts, ideas, history, ect. With that being said, I think it might be beneficially for you to take another Women's Study course. It's hard to learn when you are being taught by a teacher when their emotions are apart of the teachings. I'm assuming you were taught by a women? I'm being taught by a man. I'm not saying you are wrong in your ideas, just that maybe a differnt teacher, setting, set of materials can change someones ideas about what they have learned.
Personally, I think that Women and Men need to take equal responcibily in everything that is going on in the world. Marriage, child care, health care, ect. (And I know I've used that twice, trying to make this short, and simple.) It isn't fair to let everything be on the shoulders of one of the sexes and not the other. With that being said, i also don't think it's fair to be "for the Rights of Men" and men only. If you want your fatherly rights (which I understand) then talk to the Women that is pregnant with the child. But remember it is her child too.
"Personally, I think that Women and Men need to take equal responcibily in everything that is going on in the world. Marriage, child care, health care, ect. (And I know I've used that twice, trying to make this short, and simple.) It isn't fair to let everything be on the shoulders of one of the sexes and not the other."
Right, but at present, ONLY men take responsibility for these things.
So yes, the burden is on WOMEN ALONE to take up their equal share of responsibilities.
"If you want your fatherly rights (which I understand) then talk to the Women that is pregnant with the child."
Uhuh yeah, that'll work!
> I'll have to get the book for ya but I
> believe it's called The Psychology Of Women
Ha! That narrows it down to about one of a couple thousand books. All of psychology, like all the social sciences, practically speaking is now thoroughly feminized, so they might as well just have called it "Psychology". I mean, check out the many blogs at Psychology Today if you want to shoot a lot of fish in barrel. (Really, it's great fun!)
Anyway, and more seriously, it sounds like you should try to find a book called The Myth of the Monstrous Male (1982), by John Gordon. I'm sure you'd really like it, since it addresses directly that sensation of being a Jew in one of Hitler's classes.
Your experience is, I'm afraid to say, not at all unique. I used to collect testimonies of men who'd been through the Feminist Studies 101 ringer... here's one from maybe a dozen years ago:
"When I was an undergraduate, I took an introductory course in women's studies. ...every time I would speak, I would be interrogated as a male voice -- not just David's voice. I was heard as part of malespeak. This was very painful. . .strong feminist women would directly confront me. Dealing with questions face to face regarding issues about my masculinity, who I was both internally and externally, and how I was relating in the world (especially to women) -- that was tough!! It was my baptism of fire..."
- David
Sounds like nothing has changed, which is the surest clue they're not academics who are progressing any, but instead are really dogmatic ideologues.
Hope you can get your money back! (j/k)
Chef, at present men have to shoulder CERTIAN responciblies, where women have to shoulder other CERTAIN responciblities. A perfect example: look at gender roles in the home you'll see Men are "suppose" be the bread winners, and women are "suppose" to take take of "house and home"
Think of it this way, until a father-to-be takes maternity leave for their new born baby the shouldering of responcibilty is going to stay unequal.
Again it's not a "women only" issue, or a "men only" issue.
It's a human issue.
Naturally, if the feminist saying "All men are potential rapists" was true that could lead to the saying that "All women are potential prostitutes" as true.
Er, no. The correct corollary to "all men are potential rapists" is "all women are potential rape victims". Which is quite true, and is the reason the first maxim came to be. It isn't a judgment on men as a class, but a recognition that "male" is the only risk factor for identifying a rapist. Otherwise, they come in all ages, all walks of life, and all personality types, including "anti-rape good feminist dudes" who are so until they rape you. "All men are potential rapists" doesn't mean all men ARE rapists, although the number of men who admit to "forcible sexual behaviour" (AKA rape) is frightening. It means that any man COULD be a rapist. You don't like that? Work to stop men from raping.
I would like to champion my beloved fellow men and and beloved women to stand on a higher moral plain
Lovely. Why don't you start by championing Roy Scott Movrich, commenting above, to get over his virulent misogyny, or at least stand on a higher moral plain of not posting this shit?
Er, no. The correct corollary to "all men are potential rapists" is "all women are potential rape victims".
All dogs have the potential to pee on fire hydrants thus all fire hydrants are potentially subject to be peed upon.
So what is your point exactly? Shall men exclaim with protest that women are potential rapists of male bodies and the fruits of our labor and to extortion of such?
Yes, we should and we should also create legislation as women have to protect the male body from women.
Tell me this, what is the difference between male theft of your property and female theft of male property..NONE!
You see, women are able to take from men, property which was produced and procured by his bodily value and labor. So what is to say that men should not have the right to do so to women?
Property is property whether internal and inherent to females for the simple fact that you exist or that which is external non inherent yet produced by male labor.
You see, you seem to think you have a right to the male body and thus the fruits of it's labor. How do you expect men to respect your property then?
Your body your choice, a child's body your choice, a man's body your choice. Again, how do you expect men to respect your property when you do not respect the property of and bodily sovereignty of men???
Furthermore, you are mistaken, "all women are potential prostitutes" is quite fitting.
All woman have the potential to extort men through coercion. Remember, "rape" in terms of it's most common form is not forceable or violent but just as coercive toward females as prostitution is to males to surrender their property.
This is how rape is defined remember, remember coercion and its premise that constitutes rape..I do... So what do you have to say for yourself ???
I love it when men, who don't know much about nature, try to use the animal kingdom to make a point.
"WOW upon further investigation I found that male chimpanzees conduct warfare as well."
Bonobos are as close to humans as chimps. They are female dominated and peaceful. They prefer to have sex than make war. Yet, bonobos have been known to hunt and kill other primates for food. Unlike female chimps, female bonobos are skilled hunters.
"I even discovered that ants invade and attack other ant nests. May the most healthy, resourcefully successful and therefore numerically superior ant civilization win!"
Ants are a female dominated, They are ruled by a queen aunt much like bees and wasps. The worker and soldier aunts are female. Males are only born at certain times of the year. Their only role is to mate with the queens of other ant colonies. They die shortly after mating.
" Looking further I realized that many if not most male animals are born with weapons and horns or at very least compete in a different way, a way which can be extremely violent among each other. I've seen them fight and use these weapons as well!"
Yeah, here's some film footage of a mother grizzly attacking a male bear TWICE who threatened her cubs. She drove him away both times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNCWcgi0I_s&feature=related
Btw, you might want to check out the female dominated animals like elephants, whales, and hyenaes. Female dominated orcas are skilled hunters who gang up on and kill much bigger gray whales. Orca pods consist of a dominate female, her adult sons and daughters, and the calves born to the adult female orcas in the pod. Adult males usually leave their pod to mate, but eventually return to spend the rest of their lives with their mothers. Orcas aren't called the "wolves of the sea" for nothing. Speaking of wolves, wolves are not always led by an alpha male as portrayed in popular myth. Wolf packs are usually led by an alpha male and an alpha female. In fact, in half of all wolf packs, female wolves may be more dominate than the male, or even lead a pack by herself. In one wolf pack, a female wolf led an attack on her FATHER, killed him, and took over the pack. Hyenaes are female dominated and are the number one enemies of lions. Elephants live in herds consisting of adult females, their calves, and young adult males who haven't left the herd yet. Adult males leave their natal herd at 6 years, form their own groups, and only mingle with the females during mating. The female leader of a herd usually decides what male can mate with what female in her herd. Hyenas are female rule ALWAYS. Male hyenas act submissive and leave the pack at a certain age to join other female dominated packs. Female hyenas are led by one dominate female, and other adult females get their social status within the pack hierarchy based on the social status of their mothers. Males are always at the botton of the pack hierarchy. Hyenas are extremely aggressive and dangerous. They are the lion's number one enemy, and they won't hesitate to kill one. All whale species are female dominated. Just an FYI.
First off I'll take it that you're trying to make the point that matriarchy is the natural way of things and that human beings should be matriarchal.
Let's begin....
YOU SAY: "Bonobos are as close to humans as chimps."
Incorrect, chimpanzees are our closest primate relatives and share 96% of our human DNA.
"Because chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the chimp genome is the most useful key to understanding human biology and evolution, next to the human genome itself."
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
YOU SAY: "Ants are a female dominated, They are ruled by a queen aunt much like bees and wasps."
What do you mean by female dominated? I'm having trouble seeing things as you do which is to say through the lens of dominance and submission. There is not a system of government or power hierarchy or power struggle between males and females in an ant colony.
If you mean to say that there are more females than males in an ant colony you are correct. Males are born to spread the colony in their nuptial flight in which the female follows the male to the next nest site.
I take it that the idea of not needing males in an ant colony appeals to you and so I will focus on why there are few males.
It is important to recognize that proportionately to humans ants have not changed or evolved since their presence and purpose in the system was established on the earth.
There is no sexual selection of males by females in ant colonies. Ants, specifically males carry no genetic variables in their chromosomes.
Males are haploid which is to say the number of unique chromosomes in a single complete set is one. There is no variable open for sexual selection as there are in human males whom have an XY, Y being the variable. In essence ants are rather simple organisms relatively speaking and have changed little throughout their evolution.
There really is little need of a system for selecting a massive set of variables as there is in larger species as humans and mammals. In fact some of the lower organisms don't have any male or female at all and reproduce asexually.
I hate to disappoint a feminist such as yourself but humans are very different and thus males are needed as the carrier of a much more complicated set of selective variables which are carried in his Y chromosome.
Females are XX constant and male XY are the variable from which to choose. The need for a large preponderance for males is essential to understanding our social structure.
continued below......
YOU SAY: "Yeah, here's some film footage of a mother grizzly attacking a male bear TWICE who threatened her cubs. She drove him away both times"
No one ever said that females could not be violent, in fact females are and can be very violent and are responsible for roughly 50% of domestic violence disputes. My point was that males are born with weapons in order to fight with. Male male competition is normal and that there are very different reasons why males are aggressive. Aggression is a good thing and it's natural.
My point being that in my Women's Studies class they shamed me for being male yet the feminists do not realize why every line between territory and resources or countries are drawn by competition by males. Basically they said that there is no need for males to be aggressive. They are wrong....
Soooo no one ever said that women are not aggressive...
Women Often The Aggressors by the United States CDC and American Psychiatric Association:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/vol42/issue15/images/medium/joan_women_aggressors.gif
YOU SAY: "you might want to check out the female dominated animals like elephants, whales, and hyenaes."
Ok when you say female dominated lets divide things by male paternal investment and thus whether the group is a matriarchal i.e. males are not needed for paternal investment or patriarchal i.e. males are needed for paternal investment.
continued below.........
Elephants
Elephants live in a structured social order. The social lives of male and female elephants are very different. The females spend their entire lives in tightly knit family groups made up of mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunts. These groups are led by the eldest female, or matriarch. Adult males, on the other hand, live mostly solitary lives.
Orcas
Killer whale societies are based on matrilines consisting of the matriarch and her descendants who form part of the line, as do their descendants. The average size of a matriline is 5.5 animals. Males venture outside of the pod to mate and have no paternal investment in their offspring.
Hyenas
Spotted Hyenas have a matriarchal social structure the male hyena provides no assistance in rearing the cubs.
continued below.....
So what variables are we able to distinguish when matriarchies or female led social structures are are found. One thing I can assure you of is the presence or non presence of male paternal investment in offspring.
I can say that humans are moving toward matriarchy at the moment as females have decided to "liberate" themselves and be "independent" by definition this means that males are no longer a part of the family and are not needed to support offspring. Human males are getting the message quite clear and are withdrawing support and commitment to both females and their offspring.
This is quite natural in a matriarchy so do not fret or call men dead beats when you request they support a female and offspring that are not a part of his family.
In a matriarchy it is in the best interest of males to simply distribute their sperm everywhere, if
(a) females will let that happen and do not require male paternal investment for themselves or their offspring to survive. (female "Sexual Liberation" took place in the U.S. and females now mate outside of committed mated pair bonds. 40% of all births in the U.S. are now to single females
The other factor of matriarchal social structures include
(b) the offspring will be fine without male investment.
This is partially true in the matriarchy which females have sought to build. Male investment is needed or supposedly needed though females are "liberated" and "independent" but this is accomplished in a false fashion in which the male is forced to financially support the female and what she sees as "her" offspring or he will be placed inside of a cage called a jail cage as punishment until he has suffered enough pain and isolation (more than he would in his empty apartment) and decides to take the option of less pain i.e. he again begins to produce and sends money to the female from afar by force.
So in actuality we do live in a pseudo-matriarchy or false matriarchy at the expense and oppression of human males. The male condition is truly a very bad state. Human females changed the laws in the United States in the 1970s to create what females call No-Fault divorce or the ability to leave a male, cast him out of the family and force him to still provide his role by force though no breach of the marriage contract by the male is needed in order to make him submit to this humiliating position of "Isolated Resource Producing Male"
So yes, you are correct there are matriarchies in nature but the defining factor is whether males are needed for paternal investment. In human society in the United States females have decided that males are no longer needed, (at least physically) in the home or the family.
The goal of Men's and Father's Rights is either to claim shared contact with our offspring and thus the right to paternal investment or to be able to withdraw from any contact or forced support to the female and her offspring.
As is current males are forced into an existence under a pseudo or false matriarchy and are fighting to get out of this deplorable condition that females have subjected us to.
You still have most of the power and privilege in this society. You whine about child custody, "Women get custody in 90% of the divorces! Wah!" Heck, 90% of divorces are settled OUT OF COURT, and in most of these cases, the husband and wife MUTUALLY AGREE THAT WIFE SHOULD HAVE CUSTODY. The remaining 10% of divorces are CONTESTED DIVORCES. In these divorces, men are successful geting some form of custody in 70% of these cases. The only reason most women have custody is because THE MEN ALLOW IT. If men want custody, they have far more time and money to litigate for it. They also get it more often than not. In reality, the current custody situation we live under actually benefit the men more than it does the women and children. Most women get custody BY DEFAULT, i.e., THE MEN DON'T WANT IT. So, behind every woman who SEEMS to benefit more than a man, is an entire patriarchal structure that is ready to benefit men over women in a lot of covert ways (and overt ones too). That's it in a nutshell. You don't agree with that-fine. I think you said you've only been out of high school maybe 5 years. Your young and you have absolutely no life experience behind you. However, because your young, there still might be hope for you yet. OTOH, most of the MRA movement is made up of middle-aged, mini-patriarchs who are pissed because they don't have the same rights to own their wives as their grandfathers did. A lot of those guys have histories of domestic violence a mile long. With guys like that influencing you, you may be a lost cause. Oh, well, it isn't my concern. I have too many ADULT RESPONSIBILITIES to worry about. Something most of those guys (or younger guys like you) don't know anything about. Have fun writing another post on what I wrote. I'll have fun laughing at it. In the meantime, have fun with your blog little boy.
Wow! I really struck a nerve. I even got my own post. Whoohooo!
"Incorrect, chimpanzees are our closest primate relatives and share 96% of our human DNA."
Not incorrect.
"Bonobos and people share more than 98% of the same genetic make-up (DNA"
http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html
"As is current males are forced into an existence under a pseudo or false matriarchy and are fighting to get out of this deplorable condition that females have subjected us to"
Look at the thousands of years of history prior to the feminist movement. In most societies, the husband OWNED his wife and children. A wife couldn't work for wages unless her husband wanted her to. When she did work for wages, ALL OF HER EARNINGS belonged to the husband to do with as he wanted. A husband could beat or rape his wife whenever he wanted as often as he wanted. He could literally do whatever he wanted with his property, in other words his wife. In divorce, the wife didn't get ANYTHING not even the wages she earned during the marriage. By law, men ALWAYS got custody of the children in a divorce. It didn't matter if he beat his wife and kids or drank all day. At the same time, a woman could've been the perfect mother, and it didn't matter. She wasn't even legally allowed visitation rights to children SHE GAVE BIRTH TO. In addition to this, most women, single or married, weren't allowed to get an education or work in a profession so they could earn their own money. This was the condition of women for CENTURIES. Hell, it was the condition of women for MILLENIA. You can whine all you want about the so-called matriarchy, but NOWHERE in our modern society, do men live under the circumstances that was forced on women throughout MOST OF HISTORY. You guys have it pretty damn good compared to women. You still have it better than the average woman. That said, women have fought long and hard to get the rights we do have. We've only had rights for about a 100 years or so. You guys have had ALL THE RIGHTS for centuries. You whine about obligations women have for men. WE OWE YOU NOTHING. That said, women have come a long way, but we still have a lot of hurdles to jump before the playing field is level between men and women. That's the fault of the patriarchy-NOT FEMINISM. In the meantime, the patriarchy created this mess that women are now trying to get ourselves out of. We need all the resources and benefits we can get to make that happen. Since the patriarchy created this whole mess, the patriarchy should be obligated to pay to right the wrongs forced on women. I don't give a rat's ass if that's in the form of child support, spousal support, funds for domestic violence shelters, special government offices for women's health, welfare to keep women out of poverty, or whatever. Anything women can get to better the lives of women and girls is money that the patriarchy is OBLIGATED TO PAY. You guys have absolutely nothing to whine about AT ALL.
YOU SAY: "Look at the thousands of years of history prior to the feminist movement. In most societies, the husband OWNED his wife and children."
Can you point me to the laws which state that women are the property of men and therefore were not given protection or representation under law? I can't seem to find any. Though I have found assault laws on the books since the early American colonies.
That's right, it was illegal to assault your wife and to rape women. What kind of people are you trying to make men out to be? Why are you trying to do this?
YOU SAY: "A husband could beat or rape his wife whenever he wanted as often as he wanted."
Really?
That's funny being that it was defined as the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will, rape was a capital crime already in early Anglo-Saxon times. It was deemed a crime even where legal codes said nothing of it.
A statute enacted in England in 1285 made rape a capital felony. Likewise, in the American colonies, rape was exclusively a capital felony through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A rape conviction obtained in the past century, however, was more frequently punished by imprisonment.
Prior to 1700, when almost all sexual assault cases in colonial American courts involved attempted rape of white women by assailants they knew, conviction rates were quite high and magistrates articulated a philosophy of deterrence, often imposing severe corporal punishments on men convicted of attempted rape.
In Puritan times as well, women who came to court alleging sexual violence that they had resisted were generally believed to be telling the truth. In the mid-1600s, Governor Theophilus Eaton of New Haven Colony explained that "a young girle [would not] bee so impudent as to charge such a carriage upon a young man when it was not so," especially when she would be subjected to intensive judicial questioning
I can go on and on Ms. Feminist about all the lies you have told. Here is a good one, "The rule of thumb" remember that one..
Feminists will tell you that English law allowed men to beat women with sticks no thicker than their thumb when NO SUCH LAW EVER EXISTED. I really believe it will take decades to restore the damage you have done.
continued....
Also why is it that feminists always bring up their revisionist history when we are talking about real issues that concern us here and now??? Feminists love to make up a fictional story of the past where women were "treated like animals."
You take advantage of peoples ignorance of history an IT'S WRONG AND AMORAL TO USE SUCH DEPLORABLE TACTICS. Open a history book for god sake.
I can't even tell you how many feminists have used this to refute a completely unrelated point JUST AS YOU'RE DOING NOW. It really is a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy. You are trying to dominate the discussion and make it all about you. Are you even able to acknowledge any injustice toward men or is it really all about you?
Besides you are the only gender who's body is defined as their own property under law. The law specifies male bodies and the fruits of our labor as the property of women.
Men's bodies are also the property of the State and subject to be drafted to war. Why don't women have any mandated obligations to men or country?
YOU SAY: "A wife couldn't work for wages unless her husband wanted her to."
A man couldn't stay home and be supported and even now, in todays times a man can't stay home and be supported by his wife during and after marriage. Women won't allow it.
YOU SAY: "When she did work for wages, ALL OF HER EARNINGS belonged to the husband to do with as he wanted."
Men for the longest time and even now work to bring home money to spend on their wife and family. The law states that the fruits of male labor is the property of women after divorce. Besides what you really mean to say is that when the wife worked she let her husband manage the finances.
You Say: "He could literally do whatever he wanted with his property, in other words his wife."
When and where in history are you talking about? You really believe that women were treated like slaves aye? You really believe there were no laws protecting or representing women?
YOU SAY: "In divorce, the wife didn't get ANYTHING not even the wages she earned during the marriage. By law, men ALWAYS got custody of the children in a divorce."
Wow you mean men had all these privilege and the divorce rate was almost nothing! Look at what happened when you hold the same privilege...divorce and broken families skyrocketed.
continued.....
YOU SAY: "We've only had rights for about a 100 years or so."
Again this is not true, women were protected under law. What "rights" are you referring to?
YOU SAY: "WE OWE YOU NOTHING."
Really? How is it that you expect men to own you something and force this upon us by law? How about I take your bodily property for my own? How do you expect men to respect the body of women if women don't respect the body of men?
YOU SAY: "That said, women have come a long way, but we still have a lot of hurdles to jump before the playing field is level between men and women."
ooooooh this is getting good, what hurdles do you have to jump before the playing field is level?
YOU SAY: "the patriarchy created this mess that women are now trying to get ourselves out of.'
what mess are you trying to get out of? How do you plan to get out? Help me out here, what's the game plan to get you independent and self supporting?
YOU SAY: "We need all the resources and benefits we can get to make that happen."
LOL ohhhh I'm sorry but it's pertinent to let you know that I'm laughing right now. How about you obtain your own resources and earn your own benefits. How about you stop expecting to have more rights and privileges than men do. Your entitlement complex astounds me.
YOU SAY: "Since the patriarchy created this whole mess, the patriarchy should be obligated to pay to right the wrongs forced on women."
OK OK OK this is getting good so how should men and society be "obligated to pay to right the wrongs forced on women"
YOU SAY: "I don't give a rat's ass if that's in the form of child support, spousal support, funds for domestic violence shelters, special government offices for women's health, welfare to keep women out of poverty, or whatever."
Is there anything else we can do to for you as "pay back" to you because of the perceived injustices to your gender in the past??? At least your coming out and just saying it...WOW. "pay back" time aye.. How long until these wrongs of which you speak become righted?
What more can we do for you?
YOU SAY: "Anything women can get to better the lives of women and girls is money that the patriarchy is OBLIGATED TO PAY."
LOL ohhhhhh ohhhh I'm laughing and my tummy has this tickling feeling. You are really funny. Wow this is gold. The patriarchal government husband owes you special privileges and protection and provision so you can feel independent and self supporting aye.
Why can't women just come out and say this stuff more often. THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET YOU TO ADMIT ALL ALONG... "PAY BACK TIME" It really is sad! You don't feel any sense of shame either..WOW!
You really do feel entitled to be protected and provided for by men and government husband with no sort of obligations or responsibilities to men or society like we've done for you since the beginning of time. Except now you want to stick it to us really good!
"You guys have absolutely nothing to whine about AT ALL."
Ohhhhh ohhhhh shit. LOL. WE have nothing to whine about. You are so ironic ano funny!
When can we get this matriarchal family going so you won't need men or special care and privileges? Your dependency on men and government is really getting taxing...literally..
Post a Comment