Sunday, April 25, 2010

Anatomy of Matriarchy & Gynocentric Consummation

J-D said: “We still need a coherent message on traditional masculinity and it’s place in the MRA movement.

Absolutely!

–”Traditional masculinity (specifically the protective male instinct) is the reason for the rise of female supremacy”

Absolutely,..and precisely because females are now able to and indeed seek to legislate and personify the male within government. I believe instinctually males tend to avoid competition and conflict with females and are actually quite responsive to female demands, screams and otherwise female demands or perceived need for more protection and provision. I do believe that males are predisposed to look after female general safety and well being. As you have noticed deference to females has become legislated by law. This is inevitably what happens to the political and social system when females are given power over it. They actually commandeer the social fabric and legislative policies to serve their own ends. Female authority and power is not protective or provisionary to males as male power and authority is to females.

It is no mistake that the Stimulus Package was devoted to females upon the request of Women's Party Feminists for protection and provision though 80% of all jobs lost have been to men.

Essentially and unfortunately our essential natures are personified within the political system and further reinforced by the dominate female 54-56% majority vote.
Through this model provision to females becomes dually compounded. The system essentially becomes matrifocal, gynocentric and Matriarchal.

Males will actually turn on other males and the well being of males as a group to accommodate the needs of females. I believe this is why females as a group vote overwhelmingly for male candidates. The system very quickly becomes matrifocal and begins to cannibalize itself of male enfranchisement. Political leaders are rewarded with power for serving the dominate female voting block.



"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." -Alexander Tytler (attributed)

Our Founding Fathers hated Democracy! They referred to it as the "tyranny of the majority" They believed, they hoped that the foundational laws of our Republic could save us.

This is why Matriarchal civilizations do not and can not progress beyond the communal level. In larger social constructs the system actually cannibalizes itself of it's own means of production and the associated enfranchisement and productive incentive of males. Females actually seek to create and personify the male within government,a government husband if you will.

In terms of mate selection males are a class divided especially in relation to the government husband. When these forces are acted upon and introduced systemically and politically the results can be and have been disastrous for males. Call it chivalry turned against itself, chivalry institutionalized and legislated, the best aspects of males used against us as a group by the government and reinforced by the female voting block. This is in fact the greatest weapon of feminism.

Female authority is not protective or provisional like male authority is. When female gynocentrism becomes systemic as it has, civilizational decline quickly follows, historically it always has. I am not so sure our Republic can recover from this…. But we have the duty to understand what is happening in the hopes of correcting it….

Female power, being gynocentric in nature advocates for the consummation of resources around the well being of females and females alone. Women as a political group will not stop this, it is simply female nature. Systemically speaking female authority and power consumes the system of itself.



”The idea of men gathering in groups to discuss their problems as a gender flies directly in the face of traditional masculinity.”

Absolutely, Males will not do this as we are in competition to distinguish our own value in external utility from other males. We will not advocate to help other males UNLESS we realize what I'm trying to outline here which is that MALES AS A GROUP are being systematically and politically disenfranchised. UNLESS, males are able to respond to this and organize as a group for our own wellbeing and enfranchisement the Matriarchal system will continue to grow.

Unless this is achieved it will be business as usual i.e. males particularly those in power will actually turn on other males to accommodate the needs of females especially when females have the dominate power in the political system. Again, the system turns matrifocal very quickly. The males who serve the needs of females the most are voted into power. In terms of mate selection males are a class divided. In terms of the well being of males Vs institutionalized Government Husbandry \ Chivalry \ Matriarchy we can not compete. The goal essentially is to nullify the necessity of husband and father all together both at the personal level in family and divorce law and at the political level with Federal law.

This agenda is in fact what women meant when they said “The Personal Is Political”

The idea is to systematically direct the resource support construct ordinarily provided through marriage to themselves through the political process, from family law to the Federal level. This is done by two primary methods, forced resource provision by Isolated Resource Producing Males after no-fault divorce at the family level and through Government Husbandry.

In terms of political power males can not compete with the homogeneous and gynocentric tendencies of female nature and the related political disposition of it's voting block. Again, we must remember that females are programed to look after themselves while males are a means to an end for herself and “her” offspring. When you observe the social systems that females build, when you observe their behavior within these institutions this becomes very clear.

The female carries inherent value and does not seek to be worthy of the well being of males, she is in fact inherently worthy. In essence, her biological value can not become systemic, institutionalized transferable and stolen from her in the political process or even to the level of family law as she can do to males. Male value after all is heavily weighted in "external utility"

Male enfranchisement and voting participation has been on the decline ever since….

This is the natural result of Matriarchy and female institutional power. Male voting rates have declined sharply since mid-1960s i.e. the beginning of the Matriarchal social and political construct (feminism). Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent.

All male fitness and well being indicators are in a drastic decline.

GRAPHS: MALE HEALTH INDICATORS

-workforce participation

-voter participation

-suicide rates

-incarceration rates

-college attendance, educational attainment and admittance policy
-educational attainment graph #2

-marriage rates

-divorce rates annotated* for cohabitation

-general health & health care & life expectancy

If history is any lesson, I do not think it will be much longer before a patriarchal civilization finishes us off….. this is the way it has always been….

Of further note it is important to recognize that Matriarchy goes hand in hand with polyandry. Females are just as adamant in regard to increasing their genetic fitness and diversity, she will in fact move from male to male if the resource support construct is available. This is what women have sought and accomplished in their changes to family and marriage law and increasingly are doing so with their representation at the Federal level. Such is the central course of action female political and social power has taken and will continue to take. Such is the course of the female biological imperative and thus its representative political ethos. It is the end goal and central modus operandi of feminism. Such propensities are increasingly enforced through such organizations as N.O.W., The Feminist Majority and other large feminist organizations. This is done so increasingly through the Federal Council On Women and Girls as well.

Note*

Though all aspects of male health and well being are in decline there is no Council On Men and Boys nor a Federal Office On Men's Health while women now have 7 the last time I checked. Though it is thought since it is males who are our public servants that males are adequately represented as a socio-political class but this is not the case for the reasons I've outlined above. Quite frankly our founders never intended to have separate and unequal representation and laws within government by gender, race or religion.

The solution would be to remove representation by gender within government altogether or add representation for the male gender. The end goal should be to somehow restore rights, advocacy, representation and enfranchisement of men, boys, husbands and fathers in society, family, divorce law and in governmental policy.

The above blog post was inspired by conversations had at The-Spearhead.Com and Mensnewsdaily.Com

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're insane.

Bwec said...

Very intelligent statement. It's called an ad-hominem.

Do you have anything that will actually discredit my argument
i.e the basic premise that males acquire territory and resources and females have a voracious appetite to consume those resources and expect to be provided and protected for?

Do you anything to say in regard to these imperatives which have quite convincingly played themselves out in family law and legislation up to the Federal level where females actually have secular representation for their gender....?

Do you think that since we are no longer a united nation based of separation of gender and race from State that males should not be allowed to form a Council On Men and Boys? Do you not think males need equal representation under law...?

Ryk said...

Apparently we have very different experiences with women. I most certainly have not been "disenfranchised".

Despite being supportive of equality for women, I am still strong, successful and in great health, I am also far from depressed or suicidal. I behave in what would probably be considered a traditionally masculine fashion yet women do not see me as misogynistic or chauvanistic because they know I give them respect. There is nothing weakening about equality with women. In fact it is very empowering.

Contrary to stereotypes many feminist women do not object to manly men in fact they often adore us. What they dislike are men who see them as subordinate or less than equal.

I and my male friends are all in equal relationsips with strong educated independant women yet we are not subordinate or unmanly. We are completely as we would want to be. We simply don't have some sort of patriarchal authority.

It seems to me that the only ones being disenfranchised are the misogynists and chauvanists. That of course makes sense. I am sure that bigots and racists felt disenfranchised as blacks gained equality also.

The problem is perspective. If you feel that someone else becoming stronger makes you weaker then yes you will feel disenfranchised. However if you see dealing with equals as stronger and more manly than dominating subordinates then supporting equality for women makes you more powerful not less.

Bwec said...

HELLO RYK:: Your blog list on your profile is interesting. I've learned a lot about you. I especially enjoyed http://www.skepticaleye.com/

I gain a

DEMOCRAT, LIBERTARIAN, LIBERAL, ATHEIST, ANARCHIST, very slightly WICAN and SOCIALIST vibe from you.. Which is the quintesential archetype of the typical feminist.

Though I do appreciate that you linked two very important people on your blog whom you may be surprised to find are actually on the side of MEN'S AND FATHERS RIGHTS, both Wendy McElroy and Walter Block.

I think you will particularly enjoy THIS:

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2010/02/wow-men-are-still-speaking-openly-in.html

SPLENDID lecture by Walter Block!

WENDY MCELROY is an independent libertarian 'feminist' if you want to call her that.. She calls it "ifeminist" and is a frequent writer on the ifeminist site.

I actually enjoy her point of view. I'd say she is the closest to egalitarian in nature than mainstream femisupremacism. Indeed it is sad that she is only but a fringe element of mainstream feminism.

She especially despises the fact that women have secular gender representation by law and in the Federal Government now as well by the Council On Women and Girls.

I've extracted such titles from your blog as that I find revealing.

-"Market Anarchists Debate "Democratic Socialists"

I also find it interesting that you sway your topic matter toward the female viewpoint which is why the google analytics algorythem chose an Estea Lauder add for your second blog.

http://rykunderground.blogspot.com/

-"Red-State fascism makes its way to Arizona."

This was in reference to the new immigration law in Arizona for Latinos. So you are in fact more of Democratic affiliation and most likely part of Obama's "base" constituents for which he specified here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-yR1HWkbM

"MINORITIES, LATINOS AND WOMEN"

In reference to Obama's "base" supporters, I think you would enjoy my video entitled "Workhorses of The Matriarchy"

Observe our president catering to his "base" supporters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0

In reference to the new immigration law. The chosen title is very telling of your disposition. I feel I understand you.

I do think however that we both agree that the Republic is in decline, yes? I gather a rather distinct reckoning from your blog posts. Do we agree?

In reference to the Esta Lauder add on your blog, I do say that I have rather high faith in googles world class targeting algorithms....I'm going to go with google as well and say that most likely your audience is female and that you are indeed not a male at all but a female as well..

I must impress upon you that I am a "White Male" as the Obama administration likes to refer to it.

In reference to your more Marxist \ Socialist tilt, I think you will enjoy my blog post liking your general archetype to the Anarco- Marxist for which you seem to fit the bill to a T. "Anarchism and Marxism are related political philosophies which emerged in the nineteenth century."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Marxism

Being a Feminist\Marxist\Socialist Communist\Anarchist\Atheist I think you will enjoy my blog post elucidating the link of your archetype to the Communist Bolshevik Revolution.

Here you are Maam,

Yes I must say you are a maam. If Google analytics can deduce disease vectors and transmission or the predicated response of "their own way" when I type "men going" it can certainly determine the gender of your audience. Your denotable femicentric focus leads me to believe you are a female.

Anyway, enjoy the roots of your political ideology maam...

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2010/02/feminism-and-communist-revolution.html

Bwec said...

Wow, what a message

Let me deduce what you said in a couple of sentances.

You are a "Man"
not been "disenfranchised".
supportive of equality for women

strong, successful and in great health.

far from depressed or suicidal.

You behave a traditionally masculine fashion
yet you are not a misogynist or chauvinist and that women have validated this because you give them respect.

Equality with women in not weakening but empowering, you are a manly man whom women adore, and men like me see women as subordinate and less than equal.

You and all your male friends are in "equal" relationships

all of you are attracted to "strong independent women"

you then again reassert that you yourself are not subordinate or unmanly.

I particularly enjoyed this one..

"It seems to me that the only ones being disenfranchised are the misogynists and chauvanists."

You also compare me to "bigots and racists." which I found typical as well.

Ahhhh yes the old woman hater and male chauvinist pig, bigot, and racist argument sure does hold water.

You sure do have an "intellectual argument" that's difficult to combat because it is so nebulous, yet definitively stereotypical so as to defeat a focused response.

Yes indeed, ANOTHER AD-HOMINEM response! That makes two so far!

Not to offend you or anything but
your argument simply has no meat so to speak.... I've heard all the stereotypical patriarchal white male name calling before.

I've heard attacks upon "the fragile male ego" before.....

Your hollow attack style is typical but not unexpected. Let me explain more on the feminist "the fragile male ego" approach..

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/01/feminist-cliches-and-influence-on.html

Anyway, nice try but it is all just to stereotypical and predictable. Your statement is so quintessentially feminist. This is good. I like spirited debate with feminists but unfortunately their arguments are much like yours. very lacking..... I really don't mean to be insulting but thank you for the comment...

Bwec said...

Also I find your the chosen screen name Ryk and the Title of your blog "Dead Ryks Underground" very interesting as well..

Ryk is a family from the Leliwa Coat of Arms, families whos origin are from Poland and some of the Soviet Block specifically.


I feel I understand your political disposition from what you have revealed earlier, I wonder if it relates to this area of origin as well..

I'd be interested to know how close your ties are to this region and its people and why this family and its coat of arms holds so much significance to you. Either way just an interesting correlating variable. But correlation is not causation as they say. Interesting none the less.... Would you like to share?

Bwec said...

You are most likely agreeable to the androgynous ideal and ambiguity that deterministic subjective relativism provides you.

You are one whom, along with feminists, agree that there is such thing as "gender queer" and that we are all capable of reaching this androgynous ideal if we are able to break down what you call "hyper masculinity" or the gender social construct.

Sir\Maam I am quite a student of the feminist fold and am really enjoying this.. Feel free to comment more here...

Ryk said...

Wow speaking of ad homs you seem to like to go that route as well. You are however very poor in your analytical skills. I am also a white male. No I was not an Obamma supporter, although I did consider him superior to Clinton. I also would not have supported McCain. I voted for Bob Barr but if I had to have taken a major party candidate I probably would have taken McCain over Barrack but I would have had to hold my nose while doing it.

You were accurate in the libertarian and atheist bits but laughably far off in caling me marxist. If anything I lean closer to anarcho capitalist. I realize that many people do equate equality with communism but that is a very limited way of looking at the world. I do understand that disenfranchising women is one way to keep them from effectively competing in the marketplace and that is a motive for patriarchy but I don't believe that a capitalist society must pursue the profit motive by denigrating people based on race or gender. Competition is a wonderful and neccessary thing but it need not include oppression.

I did not see the cosmetic add on my site, I find that pretty funny and am sorry I missed it. I do find that a slight majority of my readers are female. Educated men and women tend to be my demographic and whether by coincedence or appeal slightly more are women.

You favor the new immigration law? The one in Arizona, wow! Encouraging Americans to spy on one another and effectively requiring them to carry documents sounds a lot more marxist than anything that could ever be attributed to me.

Skeptical Eye is not my blog I am a contributer from time to time but the articles you mentioned are not mine. Honestly I will need to go read them to even know whether I agree with you are not. I do find that I share many common viewpoints with SE but we do differ on many issues I am much less anarchistic and more of a moderate libertarian insofar as I believe there are some legitimate functions of government.

Anyway call it an ad hom if you want but I still do not see why, in a country where men have the abundance of wealth and power there are men feeling threatened by equality for women. There are issues where men are disadvantaged notably child custody and spousal support but in many ways that is due to the very patriarchal system you are encouraging.

If women were equal partners in the workplace then spousal support would become a non issue. I have never been divorced and my wife by choice is a non working wife and mother but she is capable of making as much money as I do if we chose for her to work. On child custody as well if men were widely assumed to be equal partners in child rearing then the preference for the mother would also dissapear. It seems to me that empowering women is the best way to address those issues not limiting them.

I particularly found it odd that you would use a video of a praying mantis to illustrate your point. Correlating female humans with female insects is disturbing. You do know that there is no biological basis for human beings to possess the same traits and instincts as an insect, right?

As to your analysis of my name, no it has nothing to do with ethnicity. It is simply an odd spelling of Rick which I used way back when you could only put three initials in video games. Later it became an internet handel, pseudonym, and at one point stage name.

Ryk said...

I never did care for Keats and that quote in particular. While truth can be beautiful, beauty is not truth. Truth is fact. Truth is an observation or statement that conforms to objective reality. Beauty is a subjective impression of an observation.

No I am no fan of androgyny as you described it. I personally enjoy being male. I do engage in some stereotypically feminine interests such as art, cooking and poetry but the truth is the best in those fields have traditionally been men at least until the last few decades. For the most part I am by habit rather than any affectation interested in pursuits which are stereotypically male. Hunting,fishing, hiking, wrestling, sports of all kinds, poker. Of course I don't buy into the stereotypes and my daughter enjoys these activities as well as my son does. She of course also likes to dance ballet and play viola but that is also wonderfull. Rejecting stereotypes does not mean doing the opposite it means doing what you would do given free choice.

My son also likes to tap dance and is in fact a performer but despite being seen as feminine by modern culture tap is also traditionally defined by the male artists. He is also on the wrestling team and a martial artist so I doubt he would be worried about teasing even if it ever occured to him that someone might.

I do not see any value in eliminating gender traits or creating some forced androgyny. What I wish is a world where we are free to be as we wish without regard to gender or for that matter sexual orientation. I would like to see a world where my daughter can win medals on the wrestling team without being thought of as a dyke or unfeminine. I would also like it if she were gay that no one would care or persecute her.

Likewise for my son I would like him to be free to choose to dance without being thought unmanly or queer, and if he were queer for him to have the same rights as everyone else.

I just don't get why equality for all people threatens you so much. Or what makes you believe men are in some way oppressed.

Ryk said...

Also just for the record an ad hominem is not a synonym for insult. It is a debating tactic used to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.

Basically if I were to say for example you are an ignorant bigot so anything you say is wrong that is an ad hom. However if I say I disagree with you and you are also an ignorant bigot. That is just an insult.

Ryk said...

As to moral relativism I make no secret about that it is simply a fact. Morality is a relative concept and is both a personal awareness and a social construct. By what standard could there be an objective morality. There are certainly moral instincts that influence our behavior and perception and therefore our social codes but those are interpreted and applied in widely different fashion in different cultures and in the same culture at different times. If there is such a thing as objective morality it has never been demonstrated.

Also as to determinist/relativist that is also pretty accurate and also quite factual. I don't consider myself determinist as a chosen philosophy but I in no way reject the label, it pretty accurately describes my worldview and my differences with it are subtle. Since there is evidence that randomness is possible I can not for certain claim true determinism. However there is not enough information available to determine what effects if any such randomness has beyond the quantum level.

Ryk said...

I do rather enjoy you calling me a feminist. You are the first person who has ever done so, as far as I can remember. I guess it is a matter of definition. I am clearly a supporter of female equality. just as I support racial equality, religious freedom and equal rights for gay and lesbians. Feminist however is not a label that has so far been attached to me.

If we define feminist as someone who believes in equal treatment and rights for women, and believes in respect for everyone based on their ability, personality, and accomplishments rather than their gender, then I am a feminist. If as I imagine you do, define a feminist man as somehow subordinate or obsequious to women then I think those who know me would disagree.

Bwec said...

Ah haaa, yes and you are a die hard subjective determinist which most likely means you believe gender is a social construct which is consistent with your feminist ideology.

Yes, my friend, your below statement from your blog says it all. Again, the nebulous and subjective relativism shows through... very indicative that you possess the trait of its cousin, subjective moral relativism, which incidentally correlates strongly with Atheism, Feminism, Liberationism, Socialism and Communism.

Traits that make you anything but an existentialist. Quite honestly your statement is just the type of contradiction between nature and nurture that Yuri Bezmonov, states is a classic sign of subversion and confusion. The idea he said is "to make ones adversary believe the snow is grey."

You Say:
"Beauty is purely subjective, personally I see beauty in things like crumbling buildings and wilted flowers that other people find ugly."

(determinist, relativist)

You Say:
Beauty is more likely a product of human nature, slightly different for everyone but with enough commonalities that most can agree.

(determinist relativist but eludes to existentialist thought)

You Say:
An object does not have a property of beauty we simply perceive it as beautiful or not."

(determinist, relativist)

So to me anyway, it is clear which side of the fence you are on and as such enjoy being what can only be referred to as a God.

Again suffice to say that your archetype is very typical of an Anarcho-Marxist-Atheist-Feminist-Socialist\Communist which you have more than clearly indicated by your blog and its affiliations...

For instance by your statements above, the below quote by John Keats is defiantly not in agreement with those of the Feminist and existentialist disposition such as yourself.

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
-John Keats

Love is truth and truth is beauty, this is all one needs to know.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "but I don't believe that a capitalist society must pursue the profit motive by denigrating people based on race or gender. Competition is a wonderful and neccessary thing but it need not include oppression."

My sentiments exactly. So why do you support gender specific and race specific laws and biases??? You know, Affirmative Action, Title IX, "Fair Pay" Equalization Acts etc. I thought you believed in a free market do you not. I believe perhaps you may see yourself as the "White Male" Patriarch who should be legislated against because of your dominate and oppressive nature..

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "Educated men and women tend to be my demographic and whether by coincedence or appeal slightly more are women."


Ah then perhaps you would consider the removal of Affirmative Action, Title IX and other "women first" policies so that men may have the equal opportunity to become educated. Perhaps if you do the 40% of college degrees that go to males may actually become in line with what females are acquiring. Does this sound like a good idea to you, Equal representation under law?

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "You favor the new immigration law? The one in Arizona, wow!"

Yes I favor stemming the influx in illegal aliens i.e. those who are not citizens of the United States, have not paid into or contributed to the system for an extended period of time and therefore their presence is not economically tenable. This is so especially given our demographic changes from the baby boomer influx and the following generations who have to support this larger population base in an increasingly globalized economy.

We have heavy downward pressure on wages which have remained stagnant since about 1970. Truth be told as much as I'd like to welcome one and all to my country it is not a viable solution for the welfare of my people...I'm just being practical here.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "Anyway call it an ad hom if you want but I still do not see why, in a country where men have the abundance of wealth and power there are men feeling threatened by equality for women."

Actually women control 60% of the nations wealth and hold equal shares in their investment portfolios, make or predominately influence 80% of all consumer spending.

I do not understand why you believe that "equality for women" has to come with sexist legislated policy to artificially create a system in which women are more able to obtain territory and resources as men are.

After all, when women's own choices are factored out the actual wage gap is about 5.85 cents. Women will get that back in all the meals, entertainment and resources men give to them and furthermore are forced to provide these things to women after they leave a man in no-fault and take his children away from him...

No matter how they try to force it the fact is that women are hypergamous and this mating behavior has not decreased proportionally to the increase in female acquisition of resources.

Just so you know the majority of men are not wealthy and powerful and do not deserve gender feminist and sexist laws to handicap them and the free market. Our founders believed in equal representation under law and that means no laws pertaining to race, gender or religion.

You may be surprised to know that I am more so independent and libertarian as well. Bob Barr is closely associated with Militia elements and Constitutionalists whom I strongly support.

I enjoy reading the writings and quotes of our founding fathers

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "While truth can be beautiful, beauty is not truth. Truth is fact. Truth is an observation or statement that conforms to objective reality. Beauty is a subjective impression of an observation."

Do you believe in a universal beauty when it comes to women? Do you believe that beauty is related to symmetry or a specific ratio i.e. the "golden mean" or "fibbonacci sequence"? Do you believe that there are essential truths to be told in preferences for the beauty sought in women?

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "What I wish is a world where we are free to be as we wish without regard to gender or for that matter sexual orientation. I would like to see a world where my daughter can win medals on the wrestling team without being thought of as a dyke or unfeminine. I would also like it if she were gay that no one would care or persecute her.

Likewise for my son I would like him to be free to choose to dance without being thought unmanly or queer, and if he were queer for him to have the same rights as everyone else."

I have no problem with this and as you will see throughout my blog no where do I say what is feminine or manly in terms of interests or pursuits. In fact I have no problem letting the chips fall where they may and that is why I don't support Affirmative Action, Title IX, gender specific funding and policy.

The Council On Women and Girls has begun an initiative to spread women first policies to Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics which seems to be against your beliefs if I'm not mistaken. Other such as GET-EM or Gender Equality Through Engineering and Mathematics are sexist and provide unequal representation under law by gender.

The Government was never supposed to get this large or arbitrate over such issues as "equality". Never the less our feminist social engineers are hard at work trying to kill off any differences or preferences of each sex AND THERE ARE DIFFERENCES...

I think you will find that you and I are in agreement with a lot more than you may think.

Ryk said...

I am not sure where you get the idea that I support those things. I have in fact spoken out against affirmative action because I see it as racist against not only whites but the minorities it claims to help. I find title IX to be less offensive but unneccesary. I support equal pay laws as one of those useful functions of government although ideally I would like to see them as unneeded. In fact I see that as already beginning to become a reality. "Fair pay" is based on false premises and I do not support that.

I do not see myself as the white patriarch. I do however believe that as much as the anarchist in me would like to remove as many restrictions on liberty as possible, the American in me realizes that the majority can not be allowed to oppress the minority nor the strong exploit the weak.

Allowing women and minorities to be paid less for the same work is fine from a capitalist standpoint but it is unAmerican and inhuman. Yes our country has come far enough that market forces and organized action could rectify the problem, but that would be politically impossible and socially devastating. Using some legislation in the short term to accomplish these goals is a failure of libertarian principle but will avert the social upheavel of repealing them.

Also it is important to note that for true capitalism to work deregulation can not be half assed. Simply repealing wage laws would not be enough to rectify the situation it would only result in a few possible outcomes.

Either the majority would sit by and watch while women and blacks became oppressed. If there are not enough people willing to boycott and turn their backs on unfair companies or if all of the more powerful companies are engaged in the same wrongdoing then market forces will not generate a change.

Alternatively the majority could support the minority and engage in widespread boycotting, which would achieve the results desired, but the question is would that happen. Judging by the ignorance and apathy of the majority I don't see it. Freedom requires an engaged and educated populace and the US is declining rapidly in both respects.

Lastly we could end up with social upheaval with women turning against men and minorities turning against whites. This could lead to rioting, an increase in broken families, an increase in class warfare and an overall breakdown of society.

So grudgingly I believe that laws protecting equality are a necessary evil at least untill we have learned to get past bigotry and misogyny. We have already come very far. I think if equal pay for minorities was no longer required there would be relatively few places that actually paid minorities less. Likewise if discrimination laws were repealed I don't think it would have a huge effect on minorities getting hired. I can not say the same for women. I believe that removing the protectons for women against unfair hiring practices and sexual harrasment were repealed women would immediately suffer for it.

You claim that it is male nature to protect women but I think you are giving to much credit to our society. I certainly have that instinct but it is clear I am in the minority. It seems judging by how women are treated even with those laws in place that, at this point in history it is male nature to subjugate, abuse and exploit women. That attitude has not been particularly uncommon throughout history.

Also protecting women is not an admirable goal if by doing so you force them into a situation where they can not protect themselves. Creating a dependancy is in fact a very exploitive thing to do. While I would not hesitate to step in to protect a woman from a rapist for example, I would rather create a society where men do not wish to commit rape.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "Also just for the record an ad hominem is not a synonym for insult."

And never did I intend for you to interpret it that way. When you call me a Cheuvanist, Misogynist, Bigot etc. This is ad-hominem

"An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic (the characteristics you mentioned above) or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy"

Logical fallacy being the key here and this is why I remarked that your statement had no logical argument and quite frankly I'm sure you know that... Which is why I suppose you are engaging with me now.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "As to moral relativism I make no secret about that it is simply a fact. Morality is a relative concept and is both a personal awareness and a social construct."

I disagree and think morality is an understanding of an essential truth and larger picture in terms of how one relates to the world or what is a definable essential nature.

There is an understanding of essential truths in the formation of morality.

Morality is a form of complex reasoning in terms of ones relation to and understanding of essential truths and the actual existence outside of the subjective self.

Bwec said...

The difference between me and you it seems is that I believe that gender is definitive and there is a purpose for two different genders.

There is an essential truth to our complimentary nature and that we are in fact symbiotic but not equal or the same. These different, symbiotic and complimentary natures, these differences will manifest themselves in social culture and even political dispositions.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "There are certainly moral instincts that influence our behavior and perception and therefore our social codes but those are interpreted and applied in widely different fashion in different cultures and in the same culture at different times. If there is such a thing as objective morality it has never been demonstrated."

This is where I think you are wrong. You will be surprised how many social and moral codes are remarkably similar. Especially across religions. Though I admit different means and customs of accomplishing the same ends are implemented common objective morality can be found cross culturally without question.

Bwec said...

Your comments are intriguing and I will be back to continue the conversation and address the rest of your comments.... I hope I've left you enough to work with for now.

Ryk said...

I see that there are areas that we agree upon but some of your premises are weak if not outright wrong. Your idea that men aquire resources and women consume it voraciously is ridiculous. Women are quite capable of acquiring resources and men quite capable of consuming them. My good friends wife is an executive for a software firm she makes a great deal of money based on her skill as a manager. She has created organizational systems that have been adopted company wide and she is well compensated for her work. Her husband, my friend, is a software tech and football coach who even with both jobs makes considerably less than she does. However he is doing as he likes and she is doing as she likes and he has no qualms about consuming her resources. I see this same relationship among many people, one partner acquires more than the other, while the other consumes more. I don't see any particular gender distinction going on.

I also see you as an alarmist, even the things you mention which I firmly disagree with in principal such as women first policies, are in practice not having or likely to have any significant effect on the welfare of men in general. Affirmative action has not in all the time it has been practiced helped minorities in any significant way or hurt whites. Yes it has helped some individuals at the expense of others which is one reason I oppose it but it has not caused a crisis or disenfranchisement of whites. The female first laws will be much the same.

That doesn't mean I would support them. Should such things appear on the ballot I would vote against them and the sort of representatives that get my vote would not support them. However should they be implemented they will in practice be no big thing.

I do agree that the government was never supposed to get this large on that we are in sync, but I disagree with your statement about it not being supposed to legislate on matters of equality. That is one of governments few useful functions. To protect the minority from the majority and the weak from the strong. That is the main reason I can not be considered an anarchist, I feel that given complete autonomy those who have power whether through numbers or resources will oppress those who don't. History says I am correct, therefore I endorse a limited government precisely to prevent that from happening. Unfettered capitalism like anarchy will not eliminate government it will simply hand governmental power to whoever can take it.

Also what you have to say about men being predisposed to womens welfare and seeking to accomodate them is an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. It is how men like to percieve themselves and describe themselves but I see no actual empirical evidence for it on a society wide scale.

Our daughters certainly, our wives and lovers oftentimes as well but women in general I see no reason to believe it either in modern culture or historically. Men seek to acquire women and keep them. While this includes protecting them from other males it also includes dominating and controling them. I know that doesn't apply to all men but look at society around you. We live n a world of pimpin ho's, we live in a world where at least a fifth of women are raped probably higher and many are raped more than once. We live in a world with wife beaters and wife murderers. Despite all of this women are actually still better off now than historicaly. Largely due to the feminist movement.

I think that in many cases the government is better suited to protecting women than the goodwill of men.

Ryk said...

Regarding your comments on relativism you reference "essential truths" as the core to your argument yet you have yet to establish these essential truths exist or to define them specifically. You are begging the question.

On gender distinctions I think you are on stronger ground. I think women tend to gravitate towards certain roles and inclinations just as men do. However there is no cause or value in enforcing or implying those roles. People will and should do as they will. Provided they do not infringe on the freedoms of others or cause loss or harm then good for them.

I never implied that men and women were the same there are obvious biological differences and at the extremes there are differences in physical capability. However I disagre with you that we are not all equal. I also am unaware of any gender difference which unfits either gender from pursuing whatever role in society they wish to.

Also as I said even the physical differences exist only at the extremes. For example my wife is almost my height she is 5'11 and she is quite strong. She can not outperform me in most tests of strength but there are men who she is stronger than. Also I don't believe that the fastest female sprinters and swimmers are a match for their male counterparts however they could certainly run or swim rings around me. In fact despite the fact that I am large and in pretty good shape there are women body builders who could out lift me and probably some women boxers and martial artists who could kick my ass. Maybe not any women wrestlers though.

Since a man does not require this extreme level of fitness for any job I can think of there is no reason why a strong fit woman could not do any job a man could.

Also men may not be able to bear children but there is no biological reason why men are less fit to be a childs primary care giver than a women if that is what he chose.

I think these gender differences are superficial. They matter in some ways but are irrelevant to equality.

Ryk said...

I also noted that you equated matriarchy with polyandry and used genetic fitness as a rational. There are three things there I disagree with. The first is matriarchy, I just don't see it happening, it certainly could, you are correct about the voting power of women, but it strikes me as unrealistic that it will.

In the political climate we have I see patriarchy, matriarch, and racial supremacy as being irrelevant. The true power is in political hegamony. The reality is that while the political parties play lip service to their supposed principals and do, as you say exploit personal preferences and such to secure votes that has little influence on us. It is just a power game among themselves. Neither of the major parties are committed to anything insomuch as the spread of governmental power.

Just as the left may well be exploiting feminism the right exploits religion. War, peace, race, taxes, the assorted gods are all tools for this purpose but they are not the purpose. The effect on our freedom and welfare is the same from a Democrat as a Republican. Barrack says different things than Bush and pursues a different public agenda but is doing little different. He is using our political differences, a couple of wars, and our religious ideologies to convince people to give up their liberty and expand the federal government. If it wwere not gender politics it would be sexual politics or religious politics. In fact those are also being used. Bush did it Clinton did it Obamma does it and McCain would have. Matriarchy is not our worry it is our government regardless of what name we give it.

Secondly regarding polyandry, I fail to see the problem. My wife and I are firmly monogamous but if other people are not why should I care. I would care if my wife chose to be and we would have to resolve the issue, but why would you care. Likewise why would I care if someone else engaged in polyandry, polyamory, polygamy or whatever else they wish.

Lastly genetic fitness does not neccesarily motivate women to multiple partners it actually would motivate them to find a single strong partner and bear multiple children with him. If such imperative were the strongest drive in womens choice of partner the problem would not be polyandry but polygamy as women formed "harems" attached to the men seen as fittest and left the "lesser" men mateless. There is no evidence that women seek anything like this. It also seems that women choose mates for a variety of reasons only peripharely related to fitness if at all.

Ryk said...

You asked:
Do you believe in a universal beauty when it comes to women? Do you believe that beauty is related to symmetry or a specific ratio i.e. the "golden mean" or "fibbonacci sequence"? Do you believe that there are essential truths to be told in preferences for the beauty sought in women?

It has some validity that symmetry of feature is a trait that we may be evolutionarily selected to be attracted to and it certainly can influence our perception of beauty in potential mates but that is genetics not any intrinsic truth. Perceptions of beauty even in potential mates is very subjective and just we two may well have widely different tastes in womens appearence. Further context and perspective also have more bearing on beauty than symmetry. My wife has, after seventeen years and two children, put on a few pounds and lost the tight figure she had at eighteen, but I have never found her more beautiful than I do now.

Outside of courtship symmetry is virtually irrelevant to beauty.

I am often drawn to symmetry in nature and art but just as often I find beauty in the asymetrical. Again regardless of what I percieve as beauty it is a property of my perception not a property of the object, the probability that my perception is biased by genetic imparetives does not change that fact.

I do agree that regarding mathematics truth is always beautiful, but I haven't seen anything to say that beauty has any property of truth.

Ryk said...

Regarding immigration you state:
Yes I favor stemming the influx in illegal aliens i.e. those who are not citizens of the United States, have not paid into or contributed to the system for an extended period of time and therefore their presence is not economically tenable. This is so especially given our demographic changes from the baby boomer influx and the following generations who have to support this larger population base in an increasingly globalized economy.

I do not specifically disagree with controlling immigration. That is another of the functions I believe is legitamate in government. I do not see it as the crisis you do. Immigration has always led to panic, outrage, and bigotry from the current inhabitants many who are the children of immigrants themselves. The Irish,Polish,Itallians, were all treated as inferior when they first came to America in large numbers for the same reasons mexicans are now. They work for less, take jobs, and are seen as not contributing. The not contributing part is more true for illeagal Mexicans but only because they are illeagal. Had the Polish or Irish had to deal with our current border policies many would have been illeagal as well. The real worry in the North about the freed slaves was the same as for immigrants. Somehow we survived these waves of "job stealers" most of them went on to feel the same about the next large scale immigrations. I agree that the influx of illeagals is a problem but not of the magnitude you seem to.

Even if it were this is a case where ends do not justify the means. Two main traits of the Soviet State that outraged most Americans were that the Government required people to spy on one another and that people were required to carry their papers at all times or be subject to arrest. The law in Arizona is little different and while I normally hold off on making slippery slope arguments in this case I think it is warranted. I don't see giving our already power mad government free reign to adopt Soviet style powers as being a good idea. If the electorate of a State decides to control immigration at its border I think the federal Government should step aside(it won't) but I can not condone the means of doing so being used in Arizona and the citizens who support it should be ashamed of themselves, and will have no right to complain when they find themselves one day being forced to carry travel papers and threatened with arrest if they don't inform on their neighbors to the commitee for State security, I mean Department of Homeland Security. I always mix those up.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "I particularly found it odd that you would use a video of a praying mantis to illustrate your point."


Trust me when I tell you my friend, there exists biological imperatives that are ubiquitous and universal to the female. She is in fact voracious and feels intrinsically entitled when it comes to ensuring these imperatives.

Ryk said...

You say:


Trust me when I tell you my friend, there exists biological imperatives that are ubiquitous and universal to the female. She is in fact voracious and feels intrinsically entitled when it comes to ensuring these imperatives.

I would prefer to trust biology which does not support you there is no evidence that human females posess predatory instincts against their mates. Nor is it demonstrated that women are voracious or entitled by instinct. This is simply your, opinion and possibly personal experience and such things have not been identified as evolutionary traits.

As to personal experience being an argument my subjective experience of female traits is at odds with yours. My experience has women in the position of being giving, generous and solicitous of my welfare.

This is no more of an indicator that those are biological traits in women than your experience. It does however contrast yours and indicate your experience is subjective.

That is the sort of thing that begets allegations of mysogyny. You may well be operating on a sincere belief but your presentation leads to the conclusion that you are a man who has gone through a bitter divorce and now has serious issues against women, and an unreasonable paranoia regarding their motives. I am not saying this is the case of course, I wouldn't know but it is a tone that permeates your writing and lessens your credibility.

Bwec said...

Hello Ryk.

I think you will enjoy this video on immigration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z87y2AZZ0kU

I support State sovereignty. The speaker is making a valiant attempt to raise our men to peaceful assembly and to arms.

I'm a little bit surprised at your political disposition though perhaps I shouldn't be as you are from Alaska, a State known as a refuge for many things other than nature and animals.

I believe it is 14 states now whom have made symbolic legislation to succeed from the union. These laws do not have any teeth in them of course but they are symbolic.

I do wish to share more with you on this subject. Just stopping by and will address your other comments soon...

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "your presentation leads to the conclusion that you are a man who has gone through a bitter divorce and now has serious issues against women, and an unreasonable paranoia regarding their motives."

No I've never been married or divorced I'm in my late 20's. I have never had children.

No I do not have "unreasonable paranoia regarding their motives."

You have no idea of your legal rights as a man do you? Women hold all the rights to children and the right to your body and the fruits of it's labor. Tell me, as a man, you do know this right?

You do know that women are given gender secular representation for their gender at the Federal level and furthermore a growing list of gender secular legislation is accompanying this representation. Much of which is anti-male, discriminatory and exclusionary.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "I would prefer to trust biology which does not support you there is no evidence that human females posess predatory instincts against their mates. Nor is it demonstrated that women are voracious or entitled by instinct."


So you are trying to tell me that women do not expect protection and provision of resources to them by males and by the power of the Government although they are supposed to be our equal??? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND SIR?

Men and Government BY LAW are mandated to provide and protect females disproportionately to themselves. This is now happening at a rapid pace at the Federal level. When you look at the sheer amount of resources devoted to the well-being of females as compared to males the differences is Earth shattering sir....

If you think for a moment that females will attend to our welfare as men through the power of government sir you are gravely mistaken.

Bwec said...

I do love many things about women and I don’t hate them BUT……

They have managed to convince men that we are in power because we do the work for them… Her ability to make us believe the opposite of reality exemplifies her tremendous abilities of manipulation, power and control..

Women know this about other women and many don’t get along with women because of it.. Women can only deceive males this way. I get the impression (as if TV, media and popular culture isn’t enough example) that women have really lost respect for men, fathers and our place in society..

Female authority is not so kind, not so protective and provisional, women look down on men because we have given them all of our power….

I honestly think the only thing keeping this whole charade going is the ability of females to convince us that they are hard done by and oppressed.

The reality of the male health and well-being is stark.

–When you look at why men as a whole of the population earn more than women you find that it is not oppression of women but quite the opposite that drives males and often forces them by law to produce or face a jail sentence. The sacrifice of the male body and the fruits of its labor to women is mandatory.

–When you look at his life expectancy as compared to women in 1920 and then now you realize there is a problem.

–When you look at male workforce participation, male voting participation, male suicide rates, male incarceration rates, male college attendance, male disenfranchisement from a place in the family and as a father to our children you realize that men hold very little power at all. Increasingly I feel the only place men have to work in fairness with each other is in sports and video games.

The truth is that women in fact own their own bodies and the fruits of it’s labor, they own the body of children and they own the body of men and the fruits of its labor outside of marriage after divorce.

May I mention that although the Stimulus Package was diverted to create jobs for women (See article No Country For Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers) it is men like my brother who have to produce for women or face high interest payments and jail time if they do not produce. My brother’s unemployment is currently being garnished to provide for a woman that left him in no-fault and the child she took from him.

The position and status of men as compared to women is clearly one of servitude and powerlessness.

–Competitive and resource reward based learning models have been mostly if not entirely replaced with cooperative learning models in our schools.

–Equal opportunity for competitive advantage and a fair playing field for men in the public sphere and in business is being removed from men day by day in favor of Title IX, Affirmative Action and other “women first” policies such as hiring and promotion freezes for males so as to fill “equality quotas” for females. Males are being handicapped, discriminated against and suffer from unequal protection under law.

I’m hoping for a great male awakening! The new initiative to create Male Studies programs (OnStep.org) & (MaleStudies.org) gives me hope for change in the male condition, our health, well-being and the prospect of restoring and enfranchising males to have and seek an honorable place in society and in the family. The future of the Republic is at stake....

Ryk said...

I am not from Alaska I am in Alaska working. My home is in Oregon although the Cascadia movement is present there and while there are no active succesion movements it is something that is discussed.

I am fully aware of my rights. Women have no power that we do not choose to give them. If men are not voting and committing suicide that is a sign that they are weak and stupid not that women have done anything wrong. As to women being voracious and not protective of men we apparently know different women. As to child support, perhaps men should be more careful about who they father children with.

Now I agree that men need more rights in Child Custody, I do know several fathers who have gotten custody but it requires far more legal work for a man than a woman. However as I said before strengthening women in the workplace would help not hurt men in that regard.

I personally have never been in a situation where I did not have the balance of power in a male female situation. Proffesionally I have seen discrimination against women in abundance. I have been on jobs where women are the first laid off when cuts are made. I have seen them pased over promotion for less qualified men and I know women personally who have been harrased, proposition and in one case nearly raped by an employer. I do see a problem with preference for females in education, especially since they aare know achieving higher than men. I do not however see that as some grand plot by women to sieze power and impose a matriarchy. Also women being given more access does not automatically account for their increased success. The top performers are still men, most of the powerfull CEO's and business owners are men. Men dominate the technological and scientific fields. Even in my work which has a large number of female employees and is technically gender nuetral, most of the management positions are filled by men. Men are perfectly capable of achieving despite any gender bias against them. The problem is that many men no longer care to achieve. A weakness and laziness has afflicted many men in our culture. I personally know many who prefer drinking, and playing video games over putting in the hours and effort to improve their position. Likewise I know many women who work very hard and study very hard to get ahead. Before putting it all on some matriarchal conspiracy men should look to what they are actually doing themselves.

I do agree that laws currently favor women in many areas but it is also important to look at what the real world effects are of those laws and also to what degree the laws are actually causing negative effects.



Such things as title IX, fair pay, and female first policies are not things I support primarily because they excede the legitimate powers of government. They are also most likely unconstitutional but I am skeptical about either issue ever being taken seriously by the current courts or the current political machine.

However as I have said bad government is systemic in Americas and just because it is favring women is in no way indicative that women are voracious and against men and it is certainly no indicator of impending matriarchy. The enemy is not women our even feminism it is the comploete breakdown of free elections. When there are only two parties with the potential of winning and both are going to pursue a big government anti freedom agenda then there is no real representation.

Ryk said...

Continued

Yes there are many pro woman laws that have outlived whatever usefulness they have had and need changing but this does not equate to some matriarchal conspiracy anymore than affirmative action is an attempt at some sort of afro centric take over. Our country is built on bad laws, most of the ones that favor women are symptomatic of a class of laws that should not exist at all. Welfare is a good example. Most social services actively favor women but that is a small issue when compared to the existence of those services in the first place.

The pro female laws which I see as valuable and a legitamate function of government are as follows. Equal pay and freedom from hiring discrimination, same for minorities. Protection from sexual harrasment, protection from spousal abuse. These should also apply to men as well of course. Protec tion from rape, also applied to men. In theory these laws do protect men equally although I acknowledge that in practice that is not the case.

Ryk said...

In the end I don't object to pro male initiatives and movements, in fact you may be advocating a good and neccessary cause.

My objection is the generalization of women even feminists as voracious, calous and predatory. The comparisons to prayin mantisis. The talk about how they are imposing matriarchy and other alarmist statements are misogynistic in the extreme. Whether you are doing good work or not does not excuse working from a position of enmity towards women. Further as I indicated before, all of the issues you raised are not the true problem. They are symtoms of an overall failure of democracy which is far bigger than a few unfair laws which have very little impact in practice anyway.

Ryk said...

Pardon my abundance of typos, I was speed typing and didn't proofread.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "The top performers are still men, most of the powerfull CEO's and business owners are men. Men dominate the technological and scientific fields."

Yes, and women have lobbied to solve the "unfair" "sexist" competition from males.. In more feminist socialist countries men are required to give at least 40-50% of leadership seats in government and business to women.

Women are working on outdoing men in science and technology education by using Title IX and Affirmative Action women first laws there.

Bwec said...

Furthermore can you stop saying that I hate women? I don't hate women. Please stop with the non sequitur and ad-hominem logical fallacies...

I ask you to really look at and define things objectively with me.

I believe men and women are supposed to need each other and not legislate against the others bodily sovereignty and the fruits of it's labor. I believe that there is no primary owner of children.

Currently this is not the case. Men do not have equal rights and representation under law to women.

I also do not believe that women may be doing these things consciously or intentionally but they are indeed doing these things.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "If men are not voting and committing suicide that is a sign that they are weak and stupid"

I'm sorry sir but I just can't continue to have a conversation with you if you are not making objective logical statements using reason. To explain away such social problems by calling men weak and stupid is just plain misandry. You sound like a feminist.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "just because it is favring women is in no way indicative that women are voracious and against men and it is certainly no indicator of impending matriarchy."

Just so you know, I define matriarchy as a female centered social system where the role men is expendable and disposable by legislation. I define it as the associated legislative support construct that creates this reality.

Sir you seem to be in denial that women have taken away your rights to your body and the fruits of its labor and that of the right of fatherhood to your own children...

Women are not independent and self supporting like they promised, they simply created no-fault divorce and made male obligations transferable to them outside of marriage along with default ownership of children.

Bwec said...

"Men are perfectly capable of achieving despite any gender bias against them."

LOL, you are a male aren't you. You are in denial sir. Gender biased laws are wrong. PERIOD.

"I am fully aware of my rights. Women have no power that we do not choose to give them."

You sound like the male praying mantis if he could talk. He as well sells out his bodily sovereignty for the opportunity to reproduce... You really think that the choice to forfeit equal protections and representation under law is something that is worth it do you...?

You really think you are in control don't you. Wait until the family matriarch decides to take your beloved children away from you and forces you to financially support her through forced labor. Then you will see that women are not self supporting and independent. You will see that they still rely on men to support them. You will see that men bear the liabilities for female "choices".



"If men are not voting and committing suicide that is a sign that they are weak and stupid."

You are in denial that there is an issue here that needs to be understood and addressed. Calling men weak and stupid will not solve the problem. Hating men as you do will not solve the problem. You sound like a feminist.

"As to child support, perhaps men should be more careful about who they father children with."

WOW, I am continually blown away by your insistence that all male problems, injustices, unequal representation under law etc are part of being a man and if bad things come of it that this is a result of "failing to man-up".

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "Also protecting women is not an admirable goal if by doing so you force them into a situation where they can not protect themselves. Creating a dependancy is in fact a very exploitive thing to do."

Personally, I don't care how it's done. I really don't care if they institute more women first laws. I don't care how women have to handicap men as long as they can be independent and self supporting...

I am not sure of women are capable of supporting themselves.. When a woman leaves a man in divorce she should support herself financially and if she is given ownership over the body, life and welfare of "her" child she should support the child as well...

If she can't afford to support the child then it is only rightful that the child be shared with the father.

It is only rightful that the child have meaningful contact with the father.

If I have a family someday I will not have my fatherhood turned into a capitalized liability. If the woman I am involved with divorces her family I will not support her or "her" child in a provider role.

I am prepared to defend the right to my body and the fruits of it's labor with my life....

Ryk said...

You would refuse to support your child, because a court gave custody to the mother? It is clear you do not have children. If you did and are not a sociopath then you would choose to support your own children. Calling it hers may serve to justify your dead beat deriliction but saying so would only delude yourself and make you feel better but it would not make you any less of a vermin.

Also unless the man is an abusive drunk few fathers are denied "meaningful contact" with their children. Most of the divorced men I know have at minimum regular and generous visitation. Three have joint custody and one has sole custody with the wife having visitation. Of course they all support and care about their children.

Ryk said...

Anyone who committs suicide male or female is weak and stupid, end of story. The one exception are profound mental illnesses but you don't blame those on your imagined matriarchy do you?

Likewise those who refuse to vote are weak and stupid. Admittedly voting often has minimal impact, but that does not change the fact that making the best vote you can is the only way you can claim to have any rights or value in society. If you don't vote shut up.

Ryk said...

For someone who claims to not hate women and to want to define things objectively you are doing a very bad job of conveying that.

You blanketly state that women are doing these things, yet that is obviously false. It may be true that some women do these things and some women want these things but that is a far cry from claiming all or even most are. As I said we are obviously dealing with very different groups of women.

Bwec said...

You would refuse to support your child, because a court gave custody to the mother?

Yes, child support is actually woman support alimony. Second fatherhood is not something that can be turned into money. 4 days a month is the standard "visitation" time and I do not call this meaningful contact with the child.

It is best for men whose family has divorced them to start another family. They should do this if they are lucky enough to evade from being forced to support the strong independent woman who left them and took their child.

Men loose meaningful contact with their children 90% of the time.



YOU SAY:
"Also unless the man is an abusive drunk few fathers are denied "meaningful contact" with their children."

Sir what planet do you live on? Are you out of your mind? 90% of men loose meaningful contact with their children and are reduced to the role of "visitor" in the lives of their child.

Ryk said...

I most certainly don't hate men. I revel in being male and enjoy the company of my male friends. I don't even hatte weak men but I do hold them in contempt.

I do not blame unequal representation under the law directly on men. I do however believe men are responsible for how they deal with such things. I do think that in the face of that "manning up" is the appropriate response. Supporting ones children regardless of the actions of the mother or the fairness of the law is one such example ofbeing a man.

Also I am not sure how you think paying child support constitutes having "sole responsibility" for supporting a child. Of the women I know who recieve child support it barely constitutes half of the expense of raising a child. Are you claiming that a man who loses custody has no obligation to his offspring? As a father the vast majority of my income goes to supporting my children. I do have the advantage that some of this also goes to my own support but I also contribute far more than I would be ordered to pay were I divorced.

The single mothers I know both work full time jobs, keep up a home, care for the children and when they get their child support it is significantly less than what they contribute. The father on the other hand has only to contribute a portion of his earnings and have no other responsibility unless he chooses it.

Sounds to me like the woman is getting the short end of the stick. Obviously individual cases vary and some men may well pay the bulk of their childs support but that is not the norm. Also under law a father can get custody, admittedly in practice it is harder but not impossible I have a good friend who has custody and his wife was not even a bad mother. In fact she and he have a good relationship and work together for the benefit of the children.

As to title nine all that is required for complance are the following:

Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR

Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR

Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex

Where is this discriminatory against men? It requires equal participation for both genders in institutions recieving federal funding. I have seen some problems in implementation but it is not facially discriminatory and in fact serves to alieve discrimination.

As a wrestling fan and father of a wrestler the implimentation does disturb me but that is more of a consequence of administrators undervaluing the sport rather than title IX specifically. Also that may be changing because the interest by girls in the sport is rapidly increasing. Nearly a quarter of the elementary and a fith of the middle school wrestlers in my area are female. Participation at the high school level is still small but growing. In time wrestling may well become a gender nuetral sport. Either through having both male and female teams or by having unisex teams. I would regard either to be a good thing especially since some of the girls are capable of competing with the boys in their weight class.

As to the non athletic components of title IX I can not see any discriminatory impact.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "Anyone who committs suicide male or female is weak and stupid. Likewise those who refuse to vote are weak and stupid."

WOW, way to turn on your thinking cap! Your findings should be published. Maybe you could be President. You could start a public service campaign.

"Attention men, the reason all of your health indicators are on the decline is for one reason and one reason alone, your failure to "man-up" because you are "weak and stupid"."

You are a genius.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "your imagined matriarchy"

You don't seem to get it, matrifocal social structure can be explicitly defined which I've done a rather good job of doing in my blog.

Do you not understand what matrifocal means. You need to understand what matriarchy means before you call female centered social structure and the legislated expendable and disposable role of husband and father a myth.

Ryk said...

You say:
Yes, child support is actually woman support alimony. Second fatherhood is not something that can be turned into money. 4 days a month is the standard "visitation" time and I do not call this meaningful contact with the child.

What a depraved attitude. Although I don't believe your 90% statistic is anything but your opinion, even if it were true, refusing to care for ones child is an abomination. I would gladly see such men in prison.

It is the height of selfishness to say that "I don't get the visitation I want so my child needs to suffer for it. I'll just run off and start another family and if my new wife leaves I will make those kids suffer as well."

It isn't about what you want it is about the children. If you would whine about meaningful contact while not supporting your own children then you do not deserve meaningful contact with anyone but a cellmate.

My wife is a strong independant woman and is fully capable of matching my income but if she were to leave me not only would I be willing to contribute to my childrens support I would insist upon it. Although I have no doubts about my ability to acquire meaningful contact, even if I were denied any contact I would still insist on contributing to their well being. Children are not something you can just throw away because the court didn't cater to you. They are children and any man worth the name would do anything for them even give up something as trivial as "the fruits of his labors." A man worthy of the name would give his children his entire life and even give up his life and not even pause to regret it.

I would like to see fairer representation in custody but my primary concern would be my children. More to the point I doubt your statistics and nothing you say applies to any of the divorced men of my acquaintance who have excellent involvment and relationships with their children, and have in my opinion gotten a pretty fair deal on support.

Bwec said...

Sir you are clearly misinformed about "women first" laws and Title IX specifically..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqLeg7eunsA

Take a good look at the comments section... This is one of many references that I have to the destruction women first laws have caused to opportunities for boys and men.

Ryk said...

You make an inept attempt at mockery with the following:

"Attention men, the reason all of your health indicators are on the decline is for one reason and one reason alone, your failure to "man-up" because you are "weak and stupid"."


Actually I was reffering to suicide, and yes it would be a great public service to point out that if you commit suicide, barring certain mental illnesses, you are weak and stupid.

It is also absolutely fair to say if you do not vote you are weak and stupid.

It is also fair to say if you do not support your children you are weak and inhuman.


As to your definition of matriarchy, I was clear on that, I just don't believe it exists. You have in no way demonstrated that it does. You have referenced a few and relatively minor injustices that do need fixed, but you then go on to employ sweeping generalizations and a fair amount of paranoia to create this fantasy of a gynocentric society.

As I have said we are clearly dealing with different women. Or more likely dealing with women in general but relating to them in far different ways. I certainly have not been disenfranchised or rendered irrelevant, nor have I suffered any form of loss from any advance women have made. I have not suffered any emasculation in my relationships, nor have I lost any standing or staus as husband and father. I can say the same about my circle of male friends as well.

I do see that I agree with you about the right and wrong of several issues but unlike you I see it as but a small symptom of much bigger political problems, and I certainly have no evidence that it is causing any actual crisis.

Yes, my voting habits both on issues and candidates are of a sort that would help allieviate the problems you are concerned with. That is however due to principal and not because there is some sort of evident conspiracy against men.

Ryk said...

I am working on watching your video at the moment. I am using hotel wi fi at the moment because as I said I am in Alaska onn business. It is taking a while to load I will comment later after I have watched it.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "I certainly have not been disenfranchised or rendered irrelevant."

All men have been disenfranchised and made expendable from the family, it's the law.

"nor have I suffered any form of loss from any advance women have made."

You may not, but try going to college or joining a sports program. Try getting a promotion at work when there is an advancement or hiring freeze upon men so that women may advance. Try being one of the 80% of all jobs lost that have been to men in this recession. Try being one of these men standing by and watching as the Stimulus Package is devoted to women upon their demand. .See:

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/09/no-country-for-burly-men-feminists.html

loss and handicaps placed upon men is the law.

Try being subject to the no-fault divorce women lobbied for and the change in family law.

"nor have I lost any standing or status as husband and father."

The status and standing of husband and father have been denigrated in social culture and by law. When I was in college we were taught in more than one class that men are not needed as part of a family and that a family can be anything, including two men or two women.

Bwec said...

Cloud said: “Exactly. Men don’t consume nearly as much as women. Books, movies, television, politicians, ect. They are all tailored to what women want.”

Absolutely, which invariably means catering to the female ego, yes that’s right I said it, the female ego which unlike the male ego that is fed by the affirmation that he is useful in some way to women, a group or culture at large, the female ego stems from her inherent biological value for the simple fact that she exists. As such women are inherently valuable and worthy of male attention which when unchecked by a higher moral and cultural reasoning leads to a deeply cultivated narcissism and sense of entitlement that is absolutely voracious.

When expressed economically, socially and politically female consumption of resources in relation to “what women want” becomes dominate and pronounced. Increasing female influence in these realms of social and moral culture leads only to consummation of the very system and its supporting construct.

To me anyway it is quite clear that females are absolutely voracious when it comes to providing for, pampering, tending to and ensuring their own protection at the expense of everyone else, especially males.

Women make or are the dominate influence in 80% of all consumer purchases.

As a result “what women want” takes center stage in our defunct feminist culture… There are week long segments of news devoted to “what women want”

Gynocentric, matrifocal, matriarchal and feminized culture is the result… I would like to remind you that no matriarchal civilization has ever survived for long…. These structures by nature become self entitled, receptive and are quickly enveloped by their own consummation.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "What a depraved attitude. Although I don't believe your 90% statistic is anything but your opinion, even if it were true, refusing to care for ones child is an abomination. I would gladly see such men in prison."

Children are not a product sir and they are not property. As such "care for ones child" is not something that should be a bill every month along with other bills.

Fatherhood IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT. Men should have the right to shared custody of the child and meaningful contact with the dear children.

In no circumstance should men lose this right BY DEFAULT. In no circumstance should it be that meaningful contact and the opportunity to support a child be turned into a capitalized liability.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "It isn't about what you want it is about the children"

Absolutely and children NEED FATHERS.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "Children are not something you can just throw away because the court didn't cater to you."

Again sir, I don't think you understand, being a father is not a selfish act. I will say it again, the right to meaningful contact with your own children is not a selfish act.

Children need fathers and yes if you insist polarizing the issue fathers need children as well.

Bwec said...

YOU SAY: "I don't believe your 90% statistic is anything but your opinion, even if it were true, refusing to care for ones child is an abomination."


The number varies but it is in fact 80-90% of men are not given the right to custody or even shared custody of their children. This is reflected in child support and woman support alimony data.

79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award

46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support.

26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.


[Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy]

40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.

["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]

50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.

["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE MORE MEANINGFUL CONTACT MEN HAVE WITH THEIR OWN OFFSPRING THE MORE LIKELY THEY ARE TO PAY SUPPORT....

Personally I would like to see changes in the law that allow men more meaningful contact with their children. Currently, even when men share the role of supporting the child equally in joint custody, they are still required to support the woman's ability to do so 90.2% of the time.

The law through it's practice says that women are unable to support themselves and that men MUST SUPPORT WOMEN FINANCIALLY WHETHER SHE IS A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY OR NOT.

90.2% of fathers with joint shared custody pay the support due.

79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.

44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.

37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.

66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

Here is another interesting fact....

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

To learn more on fatherless children please see:

Lindsey the below is for you to see as well....

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/01/fatherless-homes-and-affect.html

Lindsey said...

"When I was in college we were taught in more than one class that men are not needed as part of a family and that a family can be anything, including two men or two women."

you are disgusting.

Bwec said...

TrKing Says: “They don’t love us, they desire to be either loved by us or supported by us. They don’t desire to love us.”

Absolutely, men are the primary purveyors of romantic love and expression. It is men who show love and devotion and culturally express it in poetry, song, flowers, gifts etc you name it…

Romance is something men do and create, not women. Men love, women desire to be desired and loved. Even the act of marriage proposal is a one way transaction of male display of love and commitment and the female is the recipient. Why a man would do this voluntarily now a days is by ignorance and brainwashing or the simple fact that males are willing to sacrifice everything, including their own lives in order to reproduce…

Being worthy of reproductive access to a female is a strong biological imperative of males. Feminism is about exploiting this imperative and minimizing their cost to benefit ratio.

A woman’s idea of creating romance is creating a scenario which allows or illicits male love or desire. Women love male love but they do not love and appreciate men for the simple fact that we exist. They do not feel compelled to do anything for males and certainly not to provide or protect us or even look after our welfare.

Any desire females have to look after male welfare in a relationship or as a social groups is indeed for gynocentric reasons. Females have no desire to look after the wellbeing of males as a group and indeed males don’t even feel the desire to do so..

Men are a class divided and increasingly further divided by the advent of a new male, the government husband with which we can not compete.. Women know this and have a very close loving relationship with the government husband. This is what women meant when they exclaimed “The personal is political” Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how political the personal has become. Feminism is all about exploiting the cost\ benefit in relation to any exchange or interaction with males both socially, politically and economically.

Women don’t want to need men and it bothers them intensely that they need us for anything and thus this is why all women are feminists. Female empowerment, liberation, independence etc are all about not needing men

or making what is needed from men transferable to them without reciprocal obligation. It is also about control over property and creating laws which legislate and increase female bodily sovereignty and property value and ensure ownership of not only her body, but the body of a child and the body of men and the fruits of our labor….

To women men are simply a means to an end for herself and what she sees as “her” offspring. By law women have no commitments to men even after divorce…… Females think of themselves as inherently desirable, valuable and worthy.

Unknown said...

There has been a dramatic decrease in male fertility (sperm count and sperm quality) over the last 50 years concentrated mostly in the Western Industrialized nations. If the rate of decrease continues at the current rate, by the year 2100, average male fertility rates will reach sterile(non-fertile) levels ! Is this related to feminism and the affects of the same as outlined in the original article? There is no absolute scientific known reason for the same. However, this decline began with the onset of feminism in the Western World such that feminism might be the cause of the same. If it is, the extinction of the human race might result from male infertility resulting from the affects of feminism!

andrew pancoast said...

Central power and it's social hierarchy requires gynergy evacuation. It's continuation is contingent upon the reversal of all family hierarchy and the inherent atomization it leads to. Only the illusion of being whole and not the sum of the parts can be exuded. The concerted effort to eliminate the natural economic unit, the family, is why real progress has grinded to a halt. All according to plan? Artificial bottle necking? Abiotic territorialization of the biotic? The rejection of the negentropic father principle allows the state to gain CONTROL over all propagative rights of all LIFE in general. Welcome to our gynocentric pathocratic scientistic dictatorship. Drink your kook-aid.
Andrew