Patriarchy for Dummies

by Paul Elam on July 25, 2010

If you have followed the ongoing volumes of discussion in the gender war, you are familiar with a constantly regurgitated bit of feminist claptrap.

Feminism isn’t anti-male, it is anti-patriarchal and of course, it‘s about equality.

Sure it is.

We should consider, though, that in their constant attempt to reshape reality to fit the needs of the moment, there is a dirty little secret that feminists continually keep from themselves. Well, one among many. This one is called reproductive strategy. And without understanding that, you can’t understand why and how we developed a patriarchal system.

It is really simple. Men are wired to do whatever it takes to be selected by women for mating. Women are wired to select men that are dominant and aggressive, e.g. patriarchal.

Do I need to say that again?

Do you ever wonder why men like Scott Peterson show up at death row with a stack of marriage proposals waiting for them? That’s what happened, and the proposals came from women who only knew one thing about him: He savagely murdered his wife, cutting his own baby from her abdomen and dumped them both out of a boat into the bay.

How is that for marriage material?

It isn’t any different with Joran van der Sloot. After skating on the Holloway murder, van der Sloot became a sexual celebrity. Everywhere he went, young women in their sexual prime threw themselves at him like he was Mick Jagger.

Something about the missing body of a young girl and his fingerprints all over the case acted like Spanish Fly on these women.

Of course, he killed again. And of course, his marriage proposals started rolling in as well.

Here, by the way, is the video of Joran and his last next victim, Stephany Flores, checking into the hotel room in Lima, Peru, where he would kill her. Watch it closely.

Did you get the way she followed him like an obedient dog? Note the two steps behind and head bowed like a Geisha body language. It is the age old false female submission to male authority, killer authority, in order to have access and eventual control of that power. It is the same type of power that has been making women wet and tingly since the prehistoric plains of the African savanna.

Are the women gone ga ga for Peterson and van der Sloot the exceptions to the rule?

No.

What they are is more extreme examples of the norm. Everyone eats, and in every culture there is a certain percentage of people that eat to the point of obesity. It doesn’t make eating abnormal, it just points to some abnormal eating. These women are the same type of phenomena.

They are attracted to killers for the same reasons that the average young woman is attracted to thugs, bad boys on motorcycles, rock stars and politicians as ugly as Henry Kissinger. It is all about power. Power to protect, power to provide, power to dominate and control.

Power to be corralled and used.

When all that power gets channeled into a box and served up on a platter for women’s benefit, you have the ultimate aphrodisiac. There’s your patriarchy in a nutshell, and all the laws, codes, social norms and gender roles that came with it.  Women use the illusion of submission and being demure, coupled with sexual appeal, to get men to perform for their benefit.

Ultimately the master is the slave.  He lives under the illusion of power, when in reality he is only the provider of it.

And this of course explains why feminism has not resulted in equality, but only more privilege for women. Feminism only takes what is already there, the female drive to benefit from the power acquired by men, power that almost all women are incapable of gaining on their own, and takes it to the extreme level. In that light, feminism is an extreme that showed up in normal sexual life, just like a letter bearing a marriage proposal on death row.

And as always of course, the chief enablers of all this are men jockeying for sexual approval/selection.

As I have said before, take it up with God or Darwin as you please, but don’t blame me for telling the truth.

But that truth, in these modern times, presents a unique dilemma for men, at least the ones that have pulled their heads out and started to read the writing on the wall.

The acquisition of all the power needed to attract women brought with it a rather unfortunate consequence.

Disposabilty.

Pulling 12 hours in a coal mine with trembling walls and death in the air you breathe is a high price to enable a woman to remain at home taking care of children, especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.

If you are fortunate enough to be alpha material, you get to own or run the coal mine, have men do the digging for you and perhaps even have some of their wives yield to the tingle you give them while hubby is down in the depths doing what a man has to do.

But this is really where we run into a wall that is unscaleable in the movement toward this incredulous thing called “sexual equality.”

The minute that man takes a real look at what he is doing and decides less money is a better option, then that is where hypergamy kicks in to overdrive with the wife and he loses her.

The very moment he values his safety and quality of life more than he values her standard of living, the clock starts on her departure.

Without playing by the same rules that gave us patriarchy, there is no real connection between men and women. The men who undermine patriarchy in the only real way it can be undermined, by refusing to take care of women, are automatically reduced to the status of loser and placed on the sexual sidelines.

The only answer to this is to open the door for women on the way out, and perhaps give them a little shove as they go. It’s the feminist equalitarian thing to do, after all. These men should be lionized by Steinem, et al, because it frees women from all the “oppressive” patriarchy that comes with marriage (which they will then, invariably, look to get from some other man) and it allows the man, at least in the case of a coal miner, to add a decade or so to his life span and perhaps enjoy it a little more.

If feminism were about being either anti patriarchy or pro equality, the only focus it would have had would be on challenging women to quit picking the most powerful provider that they can and using them to live as close to the state of royalty as possible.

It would have also told women to put down books and pick up shovels.

Instead, what we have is women dominating the work force in the most cushy jobs available, many of them low paying, while men still bear the brunt of often fatal occupational hazards so they can make enough money to be an attractive provider. Whatever financial gaps result in this for women, they simply use The State, that ultimate expression of patriarchy, to fill in.

And do you think these under employed women are more prone to marrying down than any other woman?

Let‘s be real here, all feminism has done is give women a new place to kick back and take it easy while men ante up the blood, sweat and tears. And it leaves their supposedly lamented patriarchy safe and completely intact, ready to do their bidding in any way they want.

Same as it ever was.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }

JohnJ July 25, 2010 at 10:02

Yep. That’s exactly the way I feel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hughman July 25, 2010 at 10:32

“It is really simple. Men are wired to do whatever it takes to be selected by women for mating. Women are wired to select men that are dominant and aggressive, e.g. patriarchal.”

And that’s where you hit the wall with feminists. That concept totally alludes them. Gender, to them, is a social construct (ie based totally on nurture). If we brought up boys and girls the same, everything be alright and equal! Yay! (/end sarcasm)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
BoxANT July 25, 2010 at 10:38

Excellent analysis as usual.

Feminism is just state sponsored wealth transferal from working men to women. That poor oppressed 51%…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
No one July 25, 2010 at 11:02

“Although historically, revolution has been successfully carried out by less than 6% of the general populate as a general rule, it is the understanding of the mass of people that allow it. There is no current social consensus regarding misandry, so it is not yet time. I would subscribe to fidelbogen’s insight of more heat and less smoke and gas.”

There will never be a time that is right: women don’t want men to have too much power and men dislike other men.

Alimony has existed for hundreds of years in europe, and community property has been in-force in europe and some US states since the napoleonic code.

The only thing that’s new is that the southern US states recently effectively outlawed young marriage for girls in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Prior to that the southern USA was the go-to place for pedophile men who wanted to marry 12 or 14 year old girls. Other places have rightly banned the practice within the last 10 years aswell (india, pakistan, etc, infact most of the world now protects girls from young marraige to scum).

Also the marital exception to rape was recently removed in the southern states and most other countries of the world.

What this site needs to do is post an article that fully distances itself from the pedophiles and rapists that often congregate around men’s sites. The pedophiles who want to marry young teenaged girls should be exposed publicly and arrested. The men who want to be-able to legally rape their wives and girlfriends should also suffer the same fate.

There are a few of them here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 25, 2010 at 11:17

The natural female mate selection process was an unintended consequence the lesbian/academic feminists might not have considered, because you know, we’re “equal” and all that. One could argue that because of feminism we’re actually evolving, as women become more like men, men have to excel even more than ever to compete for top-shelf pussy.

But in the delicate balance that is gender relations, men aren’t stepping up en masse to meet the raised bar from beta to alpha. They realize there’s only so much room for so many alphas at the top, and besides alpha manhood is usually inherited or luck anyway. So, why bother?

Women have reached the point of only being equal to the lowly and common beta male, through “financial independence” that beauracratic office jobs offer; “administrating” or pushing paper and the limited power of enforcing company policy or government code. She likes her power.

Her natural inclination towards hypergamy has left her with very little viable mating prospects to choose from, and I don’t feel sorry for her. She has her degree in humanities, her government job mostly comprised of “looking busy”, her european import car, her condo and her cat. And if she’s not being promoted to her level of incompetence, it’s because of the “glass ceiling”.

The only thing that ever drove a man to succeed was being chosen by the most attractive female. With each generation of exposure to “grrrl power” messaging and a misandrist environment , he’s slowly giving up. And without the backbone of the hopeful beta male, striving for alpha manhood, our society will collapse. It’s starting to happen now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
trent13 July 25, 2010 at 11:30

to enable a woman to remain at home taking care of children, especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.

Yes, it’s always better for parents to farm their new-born – thirteen year old children out to baby-sitters – to actually pay someone else to care for their child, to do the parents job – I mean, it’s not like they are called “parents” or anything. For that matter, there should just be no children, than “parents” wouldn’t have to worry about the awful burden of having to care for them – father’s wouldn’t have the obligation to provide for them and mother’s wouldn’t have the obligation to be mothers.

You obviously undervalue the parental roles in a child’s stable emotional and psychological healthy growth. You (like the feminists) place all focus and energy of the family on what the spouse (in your case male), gets out of it. For which reason feminists advise a “seven-year turnover” policy on marriages. Yeah. F*** the kids.

Your version of patriarchy is the revamped post-modernist version of it. In which case it makes no sense for you to claim that it is the real definition because you are imposing your relativistic views on sexuality onto a pre-existing system which was based on absolutes. Patriarchy rose out of Christianity and the doctrine that marriage, sex, was for children – not out of the idea that women want to get it over on men. The idea of “gender war” is a modern invention that you like to think always existed – that’s bullshit. It is just as bad as all the liberals wanting to rewrite American revolutionary history, making it PC because that is the way it should have been. You, nor they, nor feminists have the right to reinterpret history to fit whatever pet theory you have. Read your history, and don’t wear your sexually relativistic glasses while doing so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 25, 2010 at 11:53

trent13, he meant that hard manual labour for men is unnecessary.

I’m sorry, are you defending an old model of society in which you’d have men working 12 hours a day in a pitch black coal mine and dying at 40?

Because that’s the idea Paul was attacking, and now you’re attacking him on that point -

Perhaps you misread?

I’d like to think of you as a friend to men, so I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt. I won’t blame others for being less charitable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 25, 2010 at 11:53

Why is every sodding comment awaiting moderation? Am I not to be trusted here?

Snark, No changes have been made to the comment filtering algorithms. If your comment is tagged for moderation, it is due to WordPress’ predetermined filtering method. You may have to word it a little differently as it is beyond my control.

Christian J.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 25, 2010 at 11:55

Anyway, let me quote you the full sentence, trent13:

“Pulling 12 hours in a coal mine with trembling walls and death in the air you breathe is a high price to enable a woman to remain at home taking care of children, especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.”

Let’s break it down:

“Pulling 12 hours in a coal mine with trembling walls and death in the air you breathe is a high price to (pay),especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.”

That was what was meant. Capiche? I guess if you just read that half-sentence in isolation from THE WHOLE POINT PAUL WAS MAKING IN THE ARTICLE then yes, he could have been attacking motherhood …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 25, 2010 at 11:57

You (like the feminists) place all focus and energy of the family on what the spouse (in your case male), gets out of it.

Considering how mistreated fathers AND NOT MOTHERS are by divorce courts, family courts, et al, I find it rather disgusting that you would try to argue this.

Yeah, how dare those fathers want to get anything out of fatherhood? They should just shut up and cough up the dough, right? They need to just accept that they are sperm donors to be disposed of whenever princess wants to chase the next shiny thing. How dare they expect to GET anything out of having a family.
/sarcasm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam July 25, 2010 at 12:08

It seems a CBS News affiliate is taking exception to my little analysis here.

http://www.cbs42.com/mostpopular/story/Van-der-Sloot-analysis-Blaming-the-victims/k6Y6DwRS_k2elOEENwlSAA.cspx

morris factor July 25, 2010 at 12:14

I was a commercial diver for 13 summers in Alaska. The work is physically and mentally challenging, no room for errors, working in cold, dark waters, often in zero visibility. Twice I’ve had men drown right next to me on jobs. I’ve seen other divers get the bends, one so badly he can’ feel anything below his waist and can barely walk even today. The one time a female diver showed up for a job, she dove about one hour, quit. And it certainly wasn’t sexual harassment, we were actually glad to see a women up there! It was just that she couldn’t take it, or didn’t want to work that hard or be that physically uncomfortable.
I get so disgusted when I hear women complain about the wage gape.
This article is right on, good points!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH July 25, 2010 at 12:28

Here is a blog devoted to ‘blaming the patriarchy’, that openly seeks to murder innocent men :

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
tom47 July 25, 2010 at 13:19

Paul, the behaviors you present as typical of innate human mating behavior supports the position that human sexuality evolved as a system of reproductive hierarchy, and that is not patriarchy at all. Patriarchy is a make believe version of pair bonding and as such is a social invention and not a product of human sexual evolution.
Patriarchy as a social system evolved with the rise of agriculture and the formation of more permanent communities. It has several advantages:
It is more stable because pair bonding revolves around long term relationships.
It creates more productive work units in the form of nuclear families.
It invokes greater work efforts on the part of males who now have to contribute to the welfare of women and children rather than simply provide for themselves.
The implications of this on the development of civilization are obvious.
If what you describe in you article is really the “default” human system is true, than that system is one of hump and dump for males and select and hump then dump for females. This is not pair bonding nor it’s made up social equivalent of patriarchy.
Your article attempts to support “patriarchy” by presenting an image of human behavior which is exactly the opposite of what patriarchy is, that being a socially constructed version of pair bonding. You’re confusing the feminist definition of patriarchy as “male oppression” or “male privilege” with the real thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 25, 2010 at 13:31

It seems a CBS News affiliate is taking exception to my little analysis here.

Congrats!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 25, 2010 at 13:57

The ‘victim-blaming’ shaming tactic is really old. YAWN.

SERIAL KILLER: Hello ladies. I am a man who likes to disembowel and torture women to death when they get close to me. How are you doing today?

WOMAN: OMG! You’re like, so totally awesome. Coffee?

*The next morning*

CORONER: This woman appears to have been disemboweled and tortured to death.

PAUL ELAM: If she hadn’t gone with that obvious serial killer–

FEMINISTS: OMG VICTIM BLAMING VICTIM BLAMING VICTIM BLAMING. BURN HIM!!! BUUUURRRRNNN HIIIMMM!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Coastal July 25, 2010 at 14:01

Heh.

ThatB CBS affiliate article should be Exhibit A in ‘why men are bailing on the MSM’.

To fight a cliché with a cliché – the MSM charge of ‘blaming the victim’ turns out to be a case of ‘shooting the messenger’. All that talk of ‘long-distance analysis’ – pretty much the MSM’s stock in trade – would work better if it wasn’t accompanied by some long-distance analysis of their own. ‘The victim could have drugged’.

Of course.

And how about all those women writing fan mail to our pal? Are they drugged too? And how about all those other cases where women have hooked up with bad boys and been shocked – shocked! – to find out that Tattoo D’Loon has violent tendencies.

All of which makes this a classic example of why there’s naught to be gained from debating with women logically. Paul’s laid out a good case and the MSM’s response is to squeam and squeam until they make themselves sick!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 25, 2010 at 14:16

Remember guys, victim-blaming is only wrong when the victim’s own autonomously-made choices didn’t volunteer them for their fate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Balance July 25, 2010 at 14:36

Hey Paul, I’m glad you copied this article over to the Spearhead from MND. The Spearhead has a lot more… open… comment section and I thought the article should get some good discussion from here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 68 July 25, 2010 at 15:08

>>Prior to that the southern USA was the go-to place for pedophile men who wanted to marry 12 or 14 year old girls.

For considerable time, feminists have been changing the meaning of words.

Pedophile means someone who wishes to have sex with sexually immature children. The feminists have changed that term to mean men who want to marry willing sexually mature women who happen to be younger than a certain age based on their own arbitrary opinion.

If these statutory rape laws actually stopped girls in that age bracket from being sexually active and making babies, I would be in full support of those laws. It is, in my opinion, asinine for girls as young as 12 to be sexually active.

The laws do not stop them from being sexually active. Absolutely nothing is done to girls in the age range of 12 to 15 who choose to be sexually active, and to make babies the taxpayers have to support, then have to store as adults in the prison system. Yet, we are told by these wonderful folks how progressive it is that we prevent these young mothers from entering matrimony with a mature man who can support them and provide a stable environment for the children, and instead we force them and their kids into single mother homes from Hell.

My youngest daughter is in her 40′s. She was not sexually active before marriage, because Dad was on the job, and we were very close. But, I assure you if she had become pregnant at age 12 or 15, I’d have much rather she married an educated, mature man, and live a pampered, protected life as a wife, than to live in a project and see my grandkids turn into garbage.

Beam me up, Scotty. There is no intelligent life down here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH July 25, 2010 at 15:20

Gentlemen,

Andrew Breitbart is a one-man army as far as destroying lefty fortresses.

Put left and right aside, and recognize that if we can get the full horror of misandry on his radar screen, he DOES have what it takes to bring it down.

Let me think about this. I think we should all start writing intelligent, detailed letters to Andrew Breitbart about the evils of misandry. If he gets pissed enough, he WILL do incalculable damage to feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bola July 25, 2010 at 15:25

Men will not be truly free until they become sexually and reproductively independent of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
V3N0M1300 July 25, 2010 at 15:31

Sounds good. Care to offer a template for those of us who don’t have much experience writing such letters?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 July 25, 2010 at 15:37

Gender isn’t a “social construct” and feminsts know it. They just spout off that line to get rewards without merit.

There was a order from civilization:

*Beta guy sweated his ass to mantain women and children.
*Women put up.

The issue is, women don’t want to put up to beta males, but still want their money and power. Hence, feminism.

Said order is, sadly dead. Trying to subvert the sexual market is admiting that you are a loser on it. Not a chance that said idea is going to fly. Sorry, MRM.

But, men adapt. We conquered fucking unexplored territory, we are the dominat species of the planet, we went to the MOON, we can do anything. The adaptation: Game. A distiled version of the rules of the sexual marketplace and how to win at it. Just knowing the rules puts you at advantage to all those who doesn’t.

Of course, a system based on taking the most without giving up anything is unsustainable in the long run, but is a must. Only when the rules are fully understood for all men the current state of affairs will change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
IurnMan83 July 25, 2010 at 16:13

Excellent article, Paul. You’re writing always seems to hit home. Keep it up!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
tom47 July 25, 2010 at 17:56

Paul’s recent article on Game claimed that it was a way for men to achieve “independence” in their relationships with women. Many comments, including the Englishmen who was so traumatized by being circumcised, and the female quest who claimed it was manipulative, seemed to not get that point. The article wasn’t about picking up women as such but on how to relate to women without catering to their sense of entitlement.
The problem is that men are still “supposed” to act in certain ways and women are not. The obligations and responsibilities that men have acquired and accepted throughout history are still imposed on us by law and custom and nothing is imposed upon women because it would be “oppressive”. Yet they still expect the entitlements and privileges that go with being the “center of society”. Men are forced to pay support for children they do not want and have not rights to and are denied access to these same children when they do want them despite having to support them. They are forced to support former wives based on the premise that marriage is a contract, yet that contract no longer provides then with any rights in the marriage what so ever.
That women are entitled to the assets and efforts of men, and that men are obligated to provide these assets and efforts is the result of the social contract we call patriarchy. As this system is now broken at least for us it is now time to consider whether or not we should continue with this system.
I have already explained my view that patriarchy is a socially made up version of pair bonding and that hierarchy is the default system. Even if we could reconstruct the system to include male rights and female responsibilities again, would it be worth the effort? Pair bonding is not a normal system for us. Altruism is normally directed towards kin, parents, siblings and children, those we share our genes with. Unrelated females are basically strangers and the relationship is inherently one in which each mate is seeking sexual and reproductive resources from the other. Feminists have already taken this position with regards to men. It’s now time we take this position with regards to women. As mothers, sisters and daughters women deserve to be our “significant others”. As strangers they are in fact objects of sexual desire and reproductive devices. With regards to children they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
Let’s think in terms of building a better system based on facts. Forget the past. For billions of years males have had two basic choices; hierarchy or pair bonding. Hierarchy carries with it the curse of “hate and death and war”. Pair bonding is more benign but is not natural to humans; it requires a contrived social system that no longer works. How about this:
Men are not obligated to women for any sexual or reproductive services they provide assuming they freely chose to offer them. Women can’t have sex with men unless men have sex with women; women can’t have children without men having children Except as prostitutes or surrogates there is no balance due. Any difference in effort or functioning is due to nature. We can extend reasonable courtesies and offer some compensation for add ional efforts on their part, but we don’t owe them anything.
Men have a right to a relationship with their children independent of their relationship with that child’s mother simply because they are their children. If we can not achieve this thru law we can achieve this thru surrogacy or machines. This is not as far fetched as it may sound, it’s already happening.
Men don’t need women to establish their identity, worth, or social value.
MGTOW = Men Don’t Need Women.
Just some ideas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunn July 25, 2010 at 18:10

The issue isn’t really about how men can fuck women in the new feminist world order by learning game. Of course this works at the individual level, all the various shrieks from feminists notwithstanding.

The problem for western society is that by disenfranchising huge swathes of beta men, we remove the productive engine at the heart of our civilisation. Progress falters, and perhaps the high-point of our science and technology will be the fact that man went to the moon. In today’s climate, its clear that the traditional incentives (family and marriage in a patriarchal context) for men to invent and create new technologies and to drive the progress of civilisation are being systematically destroyed.

The question in my mind is whether a philosophy can be taken up by men who have seen the true nature of today’s society which combines game to provide their sexual needs with something that drives them to continue to invest in a longer term civilisation.

I’m really not sure that such a way exists though, because almost all enterprise conducted today will inevitably fall within the scope of governmental intervention at some point. Mgtow may be able to adopt a survivalist lifestyle that bypasses most modern day frustrations designed to thwart the masculine spirit, but such a lifestyle is hardly conducive to civilisational progress.

My latest thinking on this is that creating componentized virtual enterprises where one can bypass regulations by changing the components of one’s business activities at short notice to jurisdictions that are best suited to its purpose and as free of misandrist laws as possible may be a way to square this circle. However, the zeal with with feminist frameworks are being spread around the globe presents real challenges even to this type of approach.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* July 25, 2010 at 18:42

patriarchy also has another advantage that has not been discussed. It allows for a place where the weak can be protected and nurtured other than the coercion of the state. family is the only place where “true” communism can take place and it is not accident that the biggest opponents of the family are communists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
the universe July 25, 2010 at 19:48

Thefollowing comment now appearing on the CBS article found here:
http://www.cbs42.com/mostpopular/story/Van-der-Sloot-analysis-Blaming-the-victims/k6Y6DwRS_k2elOEENwlSAA.cspx
– “The Men’s News Daily article wrote about, among other things, how some young gals are observed as being desirous of partnering with “bad boys” or with allegedly murderous men. The MND article wasn’t finding fault with female excitability from men’s aggressive behavior but merely points it out. This somehow translates into the blaming of alleged murder victims?
Is the CBS article writer trying to foment ill informed public reaction to a cliche’ or stir up attention to media advertisers?”
Other comments worthy of mentioning here are posted there as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam July 25, 2010 at 20:10

@ Balance

I don’t compare the two. I love The Spearhead and the “no holds barred” commenting from very astute readers, but MND is a damned good website with some very high octane observations. It has been going at it for nine years straight, and I am proud to be MND’s editor.

But always remember :) ALL the articles originate at avoiceformen.com

chris July 25, 2010 at 20:19

I read an article a few weeks ago about the many marriage proposals Casey Anthony has received from men. How does that fit into the grand scheme of things?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 25, 2010 at 21:00

“The problem for western society is that by disenfranchising huge swathes of beta men, we remove the productive engine at the heart of our civilisation.”

Yes I agree, and THAT is the REAL problem and it’s starting to happen right now. Working women are the “new beta male” and they’ll settle for nothing less than alpha. The beta male is slowly giving up trying to work hard for the dream.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 25, 2010 at 21:04

This is a brilliant article, not surprising to see CBS already trying to misrepresent what Paul Elam was saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Höllenhund July 26, 2010 at 00:59

“The obligations and responsibilities that men have acquired and accepted throughout history are still imposed on us by law and custom ”

I’ll have to partially disagree. Young men are no longer expected to marry at 18-21 years of age and become sole providers for their nuclear family like 70-100 years ago because we expect women to become wage slaves as well. And it is generally believed that they should have the option of pre-marital sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunn July 26, 2010 at 03:58

@Hollenhund

Who do you think pays the most net tax to the government these days?

Net tax here being actual tax – tax credits – government spending on the individual or the individual’s family.

If you answered ‘single men’ then you’re right. In today’s society, the unattached man without a family pays far more into government coffers than he receives in services such as healthcare, education, etc. In effect, whilst he is not supporting his own individual family, he is supporting the big family that government has created via its single-mother provisions.

If young single mothers were not subsidized by the government, and if marriage was not such a one-sided deal against men, the marriage rate would be far higher than it is. There are a lot of beta men out there that would have families at younger ages, but they are overlooked by young women until they hit their 30′s and reach assured ‘beta provider’ status.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
a_man July 26, 2010 at 04:06

I agree with most of what you’re saying. However, there is one thing that grates about the tone of your article: the assertion that women hold the power. Being the recepient of provisions doesnt give women power. It only means they are provided for. If MEN give women power (as you have, by making that assertion) then they have it. Otherwise, men are providers and, in part, by RIGHT OF THEIR PROVIDING, have the power in a relationship. The moment a man ALLOWS HIMSELF to be both the provider and powerless is the moment he has assigned himself a humiliating station in life.

Some of the biggest problems that accompany marriage and living in a prosperous patriarchy in the West are the many stilted laws in place that legally enforce the powerless position that men must assume in a marriage. If these were changed, shifting the balance of power back to men, then the situation would improve for all concerned, assuming that men are in a position, morally, to LEAD their families as well as provide for them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert July 26, 2010 at 05:08

This is relevant and interesting;

Balance of Power
For all of history,there has been a constant struggle between “good” and “evil”,”black” and “white”,rich and poor,governments and their people,male and female. For the sake of peace,prosperity,and sanity, there must be a balance between the extremes. There must be a balance of power.« Into the fray once moreBranching out
One of the best things about the Men’s Movement is the sense of camaraderie one feels, the intellectual stimulation, and the opportunity to rise to a challenge every once in a while.We are a large group of people,but until now,we have traveled in small circles. I liken it to a group of young braves huddled around a campfire,listening to the village elders impart their wisdom. Our group is growing, and as we grow in size, we also grow in understanding of that wisdom. If we want to encourage that growth,some of us must ride out as apostles of the “received traditions of our people”.

We should aim to begin to make inroads into the mainstream.

http://mensresistance.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/branching-out/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hangnail July 26, 2010 at 05:48

New moderator….

Comment deleted by Moderator.

Reason : Personal attacks and abusive language.

What part of personal abuse do you not understand ?

Christian J.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kyo July 26, 2010 at 07:34

I love this part of the CBS article:

Joran van der Sloot is the topic of world wide comment and analysis. A Google search of van der Sloot turns up more than 33 MILLION hits in less than a second.

Less than a second, huh? Is this author forgetting that the speed at which Google searches are returned has very little to do with the popularity of the subject and a lot more to do with internet connection speeds?

I shudder to think at how evil serial killers will look in 10-20 years when we get millions of hits in a tenth of a second!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Vincent Ignatius July 26, 2010 at 07:54

In my experience, declared feminists respond better to dominant patriarchal attitudes than do most women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Snark July 26, 2010 at 08:09

Less than a second, huh? Is this author forgetting that the speed at which Google searches are returned has very little to do with the popularity of the subject and a lot more to do with internet connection speeds?

I shudder to think at how evil serial killers will look in 10-20 years when we get millions of hits in a tenth of a second!

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA … Oh God. This was hilarious.

Way to go, CBS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 26, 2010 at 08:12

Less than a second, huh? Is this author forgetting that the speed at which Google searches are returned has very little to do with the popularity of the subject and a lot more to do with internet connection speeds?

That’s just an example of the hyperbole journalists (now commentaters) trade in. Anything they can stretch to sensationalize the story they will. They hope people won’t notice, and very few do. We’re numb to the disengenious reporting and commentary that goes on today. Partial truths have become relevant hard facts, depending on your world view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
No one July 26, 2010 at 08:16

Alimony has existed for hundreds of years in europe, and community property has been in-force in europe and some US states since the napoleonic code.

The only thing that’s new is that the southern US states recently effectively outlawed young marriage for girls in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Prior to that the southern USA was the go-to place for pedophile men who wanted to marry 12 or 14 year old girls. Other places have rightly banned the practice within the last 10 years aswell (india, pakistan, etc, infact most of the world now protects girls from young marraige to scum).

Also the marital exception to rape was recently removed in the southern states and most other countries of the world.

What this site needs to do is post an article that fully distances itself from the pedophiles and rapists that often congregate around men’s sites. The pedophiles who want to marry young teenaged girls should be exposed publicly and arrested. The men who want to be-able to legally rape their wives and girlfriends should also suffer the same fate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
trent13 July 26, 2010 at 08:22

@ Snark:

Because that’s the idea Paul was attacking, and now you’re attacking him on that point -

Perhaps you misread?

The title of the article is Patriarchy for Dummies – and what I am “attacking” him on is not the idea that men are victims, but that men are victims and have always been victims because that is the intrinsic nature of Patriarchy, to victimize men. I certainly do not advocate men being downtrodden or put through the ringer. The hypocrisy of feminists who scream about equality but don’t say squat about wanting jobs as plumbers, garbage men, or construction workers, is extremely telling. I am anti-feminist, but that doesn’t mean I want to replace one ego-centric social construct with another.

Anyway, let me quote you the full sentence, trent13:

“Pulling 12 hours in a coal mine with trembling walls and death in the air you breathe is a high price to enable a woman to remain at home taking care of children, especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.”

Let’s break it down:

“Pulling 12 hours in a coal mine with trembling walls and death in the air you breathe is a high price to (pay),especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.”

That was what was meant. Capiche? I guess if you just read that half-sentence in isolation from THE WHOLE POINT PAUL WAS MAKING IN THE ARTICLE then yes, he could have been attacking motherhood …

And since you were kind enough to point out to me what he meant, I would like to point out to you that his meaning was not clear. His use of the word “that” could have referred to either the former point regarding men or the latter part regarding women – kind of hard to tell which he would have been referring to given that most MRM guys, including P. Elam carry resentment about both.

Prior to the rise of the modern age and all of the help we have through technology, life in general was a lot harder and more back-breaking for everyone. Don’t act like patriarchy (according to Elam’s definition) made everything peachy and easy for the women who helped establish this country or the old west – it was unbelievably hard and unending work.

In general, if a man volunteers to sign up for a job today, working twelve hours a day in a coal mine, he’s doing it because it pays so well. If he has a wife at home taking care of their 6 children (I say six b/c it’s contraception and abortion that enables women to be those career driven feminist egotistical high-maintenance biatches…), that is a trade off he decided to make. Personally, if it were me, I would say, as would any woman who cares about her husband more than the cushiness of their life, don’t do it. Work a job that pays less, with less hours, more safety, and we will find a way to make do. If men are working those jobs at a woman’s instigation, than they are fools; if they are working it at their own instigation, it’s their choice. Regardless, (Paul Elam) don’t blame an individual’s decision to work a back-breaking job on your ill-defined concept of the patriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
trent13 July 26, 2010 at 08:25

You (like the feminists) place all focus and energy of the family on what the spouse (in your case male), gets out of it.

Considering how mistreated fathers AND NOT MOTHERS are by divorce courts, family courts, et al, I find it rather disgusting that you would try to argue this.

Yeah, how dare those fathers want to get anything out of fatherhood? They should just shut up and cough up the dough, right? They need to just accept that they are sperm donors to be disposed of whenever princess wants to chase the next shiny thing. How dare they expect to GET anything out of having a family.

Despite the circumstances revolving around who gets the shitty end of the stick in divorce courts, the principle remains the same: the MRM places the same type of emphasis on one gender being the recipient of every good thing, as feminism does, and it is the key to Elam’s screwed up definition of what patriarchy is and always has been. The concept of marriage (or one could just say male/female relationships) being about one or the other spouse only came to a head with feminism, so how is it possible that historically, patriarchy was always about what women could get out of it? It wasn’t; patriarchy was about family and right order in society starting with rightly ordered families.

And the divorce court circumstances men are having to deal with today are just another example of why divorce should be illegal. If a person knew that he/she would be legally bound to another person for the rest of their life, they would be a hell of a lot more choosy about who they were getting married to. Men wouldn’t be getting screwed in divorce cases, child-custody cases, marital rape (what a crock) if there was a return to real patriarchy as taught by the Church.

The man leads the family, society, and works outside the home – not for his wife, but for the propagation of his family and in order to be a contributing member of society. The woman submits to her spouse, makes babies, cooks, cleans, does laundry, mends clothing, makes shift in order to save money, makes the home a home, and contributes to society by the nurturing and education of her children, society’s future citizens. She doesn’t do it for him, she does it for her family, and neither is the expectation there that either spouse is fulfilling their duties for the other. That is patriarchy. No divorce, no abortion, no contraception, no marital rape, no married career women, no pre-marital sex – dare I say it, not even the routine societal acceptance of women wearing pants.

Without those “no-no”s feminism will continue to exist, despite whatever efforts, resistance,“Blazing Frank”s, red-neck feminist abusing rhetoric, or even downright war, MRM men use. Either men are going to have end humanity by killing off all women and resort to using robots for sexual pleasure (because apparently a great many of you believe that’s the only reason for male/female relationships), or they are going to have start believing in moral law, at the very least for the sake of eradicating feminism. Feminism hates morality because it doesn’t have a chance at existing with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 26, 2010 at 08:56

“The obligations and responsibilities that men have acquired and accepted throughout history are still imposed on us by law and custom ”

“I’ll have to partially disagree. Young men are no longer expected to marry at 18-21 years of age and become sole providers for their nuclear family like 70-100 years ago because we expect women to become wage slaves as well. And it is generally believed that they should have the option of pre-marital sex.”

But they still have to pay for children she decided to have and keep and that he may have no right to see.They still have to pay off ex wives for relationships that she ended and that no longer exist

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Peter July 26, 2010 at 09:30

Either men are going to have end humanity by killing off all women and resort to using robots for sexual pleasure (because apparently a great many of you believe that’s the only reason for male/female relationships),

You get points, Trent13. Because for a woman to get through three posts before finally getting to the shaming language is quite remarkable.

they are going to have start believing in moral law, at the very least for the sake of eradicating feminism. Feminism hates morality because it doesn’t have a chance at existing with it.

Well, at least you’re very astute for a paleocon. The problem is, there is no moral law because there is no such thing as an objective morality. Only in countries where one religious group has dominance can there be anything like moral law. The U.S. and other western countries no longer have this, as they are too diverse. The only unifying principle agreed upon in the U.S. is that persons are free, but they can’t limit other people’s freedom.

Going back to the Patriarchy, from a practical point, it is no longer viable. As I said, the West is too religiously diverse among the believers, not to mention the mass of atheists and agnostics out there. People wouldn’t stand for this extensive curtailing of their freedom, partly because they would never agree on the terms. Look at your list: no divorce, no contraception. Well, I can already see that many Protestants would want no part of your Catholic paradise.

Simply put, many men no longer want the pressure of being the sole provider of the family, even with the benefits you list. Young women, on the other hand, do not want to be “assigned” to your average Beta Provider; they want a chance to snare one of the “top” men.

And while many women these days seem to divorce on a whim or because of boredom and barely try to keep marriages together, many women do seek divorce for legitimate reasons, be it philandering, substance abuse, or physical abuse. Surely you’re not suggesting that people be forced to stay in marriages for life because they chose poorly. It happens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 09:40

Don’t act like patriarchy (according to Elam’s definition) made everything peachy and easy for the women who helped establish this country or the old west – it was unbelievably hard and unending work.

Hey, I agree.

But, his point was about men’s labour. Which you now understand. All good. I apologise for capsflaming you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 09:42

And the divorce court circumstances men are having to deal with today are just another example of why divorce should be illegal. If a person knew that he/she would be legally bound to another person for the rest of their life, they would be a hell of a lot more choosy about who they were getting married to.

Hey, this is very true. Harsh, but true. And a truth being harsh does not make it less true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 26, 2010 at 09:43

I’m sure many of you are familiar with Esther Vilar’s seminal (pun intended) work “The Manipulated Man” .

It should be required reading for every man looking for his place in this world. It’s as honest and straightforward an analysis of the human male condition as you’ll ever find. Young men are more likely to read it because its short and to the point. Highly recommended for the uninitiated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 09:59

Either men are going to have end humanity by killing off all women and resort to using robots for sexual pleasure (because apparently a great many of you believe that’s the only reason for male/female relationships),

Ah, I have to object here, though.

When MRAs say this, what they mean is that sexual pleasure is the only remaining use for the vast majority of modern women, as they provide no other use: they refuse to cook and clean, so what use are they to men? They are incapable of emotional attachment, being so narcissistic; they drain a man’s hard-earned income with no benefits to the man who gives up his wallet.

I think that many MRAs simply concluded it is not POSSIBLE to get anything more from a woman than sexual pleasure. And feminism helped this whole process along by convincing women to 1) renounce their useful functions to men, and 2) ‘own their sexuality’ by releasing their inner whores. Now, as Ferdinand Bardamu recently put it, we have no end of broken girls from broken homes; and what possible use to men could they be EXCEPT as the sexual objects feminist training has turned them into?

That is not to say that we consider this situation to be ideal; I am quite sure that most MRAs once entertained thoughts of connecting emotionally to women, before concluding that this was utterly impossible; they are far too in love with themselves.

And those that are not, although they do exist, are so rare as to be human needles in the proverbial haystack.

And still, some MRAs are so repulsed by modern woman that even this last remaining function – sexual pleasure – is not worth the pain, blame and shame that a man must endure from his relationship with women. They are turned off by her aggressive, obnoxious attitude. And quite naturally they say, bring on the sex dolls …

Feminism is a movement that explicitly sought to make women unattractive and useless to men. Mission accomplished, now all they do is complain about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sister Y July 26, 2010 at 10:11

tom47 says:

“Men have a right to a relationship with their children independent of their relationship with that child’s mother simply because they are their children.”

I have been considering the issue of genetic paternity in regard to mandatory child support (rather than parental rights). Since merely being the genetic parent of a child is not enough to force a woman to have a child (abortion rights), why should it be enough to force a man to support a child he did not want?

Parental rights is the other side of the coin. WHY should genetic paternity (or even genetic maternity, for that matter) entitle someone to authority over a child?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 10:30

Exactly Sister Y, the point is that it cannot be morally consistent to have only one and not the other.

E.g. a man forced to pay child support, yet given no rights to see his own child.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 26, 2010 at 10:33

“WHY should genetic paternity (or even genetic maternity, for that matter) entitle someone to authority over a child?”

Anarchy. Without leaders with the power to enforce rules there would be anarchy, in this case anarchy in the family and anarchy amongst children. Ever read Lord of the Flies?

Think a little bit more before you try to get philosophical.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 26, 2010 at 10:34

Parental rights is the other side of the coin. WHY should genetic paternity (or even genetic maternity, for that matter) entitle someone to authority over a child?

Is not that natural? Who do you want to give the authority to? The state?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 10:35

Welmer please for the love of God allow me to sign in again, or just let my comments through. They all get approved anyway, but I have to wait a few hours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunn July 26, 2010 at 10:36

As has been suggested many times, the best way around the issue of child support would be to allow men to ‘abort’ their children by a legal process that would allow them to avoid all future child support payments. In passing, such an option would compel the state to end unqualified child support for single mothers, and consequently would reduce the teen pregnancy rates down to zero pretty much overnight.

As for authority over children, don’t fall into the modern left wing trap that all authority is bad as its an exercise of immoral power. Children are dependent on adults in order to survive to adulthood, and as such require guidance and support. Its better for most children that this function is served by their natural genetic parents, who have the most investment in seeing their children grow to be successful adults. Entrusting the state to perform this role is foolish, because ultimately the state’s investment is made with the assumption that it will be getting an eventual return on its investment through the child’s future labor, making it a biased guardian at best.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 10:36

You know how much I love this place, right Welmer? … I’m unlikely to stop posting here for any reason except this – because I can’t keep up with the conversation. I post and everyone’s moved on by the time it’s visible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
thehermit July 26, 2010 at 10:39

“Parental rights is the other side of the coin. WHY should genetic paternity (or even genetic maternity, for that matter) entitle someone to authority over a child?”

Who do you want to give the authority to? The state?
Is not that natural and default to give the authority to the parents?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 26, 2010 at 10:46

“Robert July 26, 2010 at 05:08

This is relevant and interesting;

Balance of Power
For all of history,there has been a constant struggle between “good” and “evil”,”black” and “white”,rich and poor,governments and their people,male and female. For the sake of peace,prosperity,and sanity, there must be a balance between the extremes. There must be a balance of power.« Into the fray once moreBranching out
One of the best things about the Men’s Movement is the sense of camaraderie one feels, the intellectual stimulation, and the opportunity to rise to a challenge every once in a while.We are a large group of people,but until now,we have traveled in small circles. I liken it to a group of young braves huddled around a campfire,listening to the village elders impart their wisdom. Our group is growing, and as we grow in size, we also grow in understanding of that wisdom. If we want to encourage that growth,some of us must ride out as apostles of the “received traditions of our people”.

We should aim to begin to make inroads into the mainstream.”

Nice paragraph. I’ll be an apostle if I make the top 12 cut. I’m not putting in the leg work if I don’t get mentioned in the big book. Saint Jabberwocky has a nice ring to it. Do I have to be martyred? I hope not. But if I do, I call getting the head chopped off. Seems the most painless. They’ll need vorpal steel however, and the price of that precious metal is rising fast on the world market. He who slays the Jabberwock must own the gold of a thousand kings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer July 26, 2010 at 10:56

You know how much I love this place, right Welmer? … I’m unlikely to stop posting here for any reason except this – because I can’t keep up with the conversation. I post and everyone’s moved on by the time it’s visible.

Snark, you should be coming through. The only reason I can think of that you might not be is because you may have posted anonymously, and that throws off the automatic approval.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 11:09

For all of history,there has been a constant struggle between “good” and “evil”,”black” and “white”,

Untrue, discredited, infantile.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 11:09

Another divorce, another dead child.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297804/Boy-4-dead-inside-tumble-dryer-police-search.html

Other neighbours said that Miss Shepherd had recently split from Sonny’s father and often left him in the care of her four other children from her previous relationship

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer July 26, 2010 at 11:20

One more thing, Snark. It might help to fill out the email form when commenting. All that matters is that it’s a consistent email, so it doesn’t have to be real, but it’s hidden and private either way. That might take care of the issue.

I’ve noticed that when people comment with different emails (or perhaps no email) it triggers the automatic moderation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
No one July 26, 2010 at 11:22

Alimony has existed for hundreds of years in europe, and community property has been in-force in europe and some US states since the napoleonic code.

The only thing that’s new is that the southern US states recently effectively outlawed young marriage for girls in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Prior to that the southern USA was the go-to place for pedophile men who wanted to marry 12 or 14 year old girls. Other places have rightly banned the practice within the last 10 years aswell (india, pakistan, etc, infact most of the world now protects girls from young marraige to scum).

Also the marital exception to rape was recently removed in the southern states and most other countries of the world.

What this site needs to do is post an article that fully distances itself from the pedophiles and rapists that often congregate around men’s sites. The pedophiles who want to marry young teenaged girls should be exposed publicly and arrested. The men who want to be-able to legally rape their wives and girlfriends should also suffer the same fate.

There are a few of them here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 11:29

One more thing, Snark. It might help to fill out the email form when commenting. All that matters is that it’s a consistent email, so it doesn’t have to be real, but it’s hidden and private either way. That might take care of the issue.

I did this for a while, but it made no difference so I stopped.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 11:30

Hey guys, check out ‘No one’. It’s like a bizarro MikeeUSA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer July 26, 2010 at 11:39

I did this for a while, but it made no difference so I stopped.

Could be your IP, I’ll look into akismet to see what’s going on there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom936 July 26, 2010 at 11:46

>chris July 25, 2010 at 20:19
>I read an article a few weeks ago about the many marriage >proposals Casey Anthony has received from men. How does >that fit into the grand scheme of things?

I looked that up. I have my doubts that “many” is the right word. The major news media are trumpeting that she received marriage proposals, but they all use weasel language, which raises my suspicions. Here’s an excerpt from a typical report:

>The 5,000 pages of documents from the Orange County state >attorney’s office include fan letters, marriage proposals and >invitations to Anthony to surrender her life to Christ, go >sailing, visit Nashville and learn how to play golf, The Orlando >Sentinel reported.
>There are some less sympathetic letters,

That doesn’t sound like many to me, it sounds like one or maybe two. Still all the media try to make it sound like it’s mostly marriage proposals. This one’s titled “Casey Anthony gets proposals, invitations”

What does seem to be common, again me subjectively reading between the lines, are letters from white knights that just can’t believe a woman could do that. That doesn’t surprise me, unfortunately.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
BWB July 26, 2010 at 11:47

What this site needs to do is post an article that fully distances itself from the pedophiles and rapists that often congregate around men’s sites.

This is a strawman. This site has little, if anything, to do with pedophilia. This reminds me of the NAACP telling the Tea Partiers they need to expel their “racist elements.”

-B

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer July 26, 2010 at 11:49

OK, Snark, I think I know what the problem is. Write me an email and I’ll explain what’s going on — might have something to do with your ISP.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 11:59

Write me an email and I’ll explain what’s going on

Sent …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sister Y July 26, 2010 at 12:41

I completely support the concept of “financial abortion,” because I believe in freedom of contract, and that consenting to sex doesn’t equal consenting to raise a child. I also agree with Gunn above that this would have salutary effects on the teen pregnancy rate (though it wouldn’t drop it to zero, by a long shot – this underestimates the sentimentality of mothers, grandparents, and anti-abortion religious establishments, among others). I have yet to see any non-silly arguments against “financial abortion.” Does anyone in the men’s rights community argue that this sort of “financial abortion” is wrong? I’m interested in counter-arguments.

I agree with other commenters that (a) it is natural to allow genetic parents authority over their spawn, and (b) that because of their genetic relatedness, genetic parents are generally the best ones to raise their children (e.g., the least likely to kill or neglect them). But “naturalness” does not lead to moral correctness, and there are thousands of cases where genetic parents are shitty parents.

(I’m not arguing the state should have automatic custody of children or anything – I’m just pointing out the problem of authority over children – parents’ freedom versus children’s freedom – from a libertarian perspective. Imagine a highly intelligent twelve-year-old atheist who is forced by his parents to attend church/religious school/religious counseling, for example. Morally and ethically, what gives such parents rights over their children?)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 12:47

Does anyone in the men’s rights community argue that this sort of “financial abortion” is wrong?

Unlikely!

Really, what the mother is aborting is a LIFESTYLE when she aborts a child.

Why should men not be granted the same right, to abort a lifestyle they never asked for?

It’s funny how feminists will respond that men should not have sex unless they are willing to raise a child … and then look absolutely shocked at the suggestion that a woman might like to keep her legs closed.

Here’s another piece by Paul Elam on the very subject …

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/05/18/time-to-abort-fatherhood-at-will/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MsExceptionToTheRule July 26, 2010 at 12:59

I think it would probably get people to seriously contemplate whether they’re choosing the right person if divorce was simply eliminated as an option. Of course I also can see there being a significant increase in the number of dead spouses because it’s impossible to make people do something they don’t want to – which would include thinking about whether getting married to someone is the best idea, and inevitably there are always some who go through life and spending zero time thinking about any major decision thoroughly or with sufficient consideration of all possible outcomes/options to discern the best one.

Ideally though, people should spend some time and marry with the belief that divorce is an option of last resort under restricted circumstances – not because you’re not pleased with how big your house is, how much sex one has or doesn’t have, or because some other bs is causing one of the parties to feel like being vindictive at that moment. Is the wife/husband abusive to their spouse and/or kids? Are they cheating and refusing to stop that destructive behavior? Then maybe divorce is in order. People need to realize that married couples don’t always snuggle on the couch and tell each other how perfect everything is and how much they appreciate one another. It takes work, and it’s a decision not to be entered into lightly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel July 26, 2010 at 13:00

On second thought, wouldn’t things be better if marriage was simply abolished?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 26, 2010 at 13:55

“Snark July 26, 2010 at 11:09

For all of history,there has been a constant struggle between “good” and “evil”,”black” and “white”,

Untrue, discredited, infantile.”

Really? How so? You don’t think all things exist as a duality, an inherent dichotomy of sorts. Entire Eastern religions have observed and documented this realty for a long time, and they’ve stuck around because of the truth to their wisdom. Its just a bit of metaphysical poetry, a simplification of course, but still an underlying truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 26, 2010 at 13:59

But “naturalness” does not lead to moral correctness, and there are thousands of cases where genetic parents are shitty parents.

There are situations where the less worse is the best. Welcome to the real world. Generally speaking the genetical parents are the best, but there are expectations for sure.

Imagine a highly intelligent twelve-year-old atheist who is forced by his parents to attend church/religious school/religious counseling, for example. Morally and ethically, what gives such parents rights over their children?

Well when you are a parent, you will make mistakes on a way or another. A twelve year old is still very flexible. I don’t find your example so morally shocking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 26, 2010 at 14:00

“Imagine a highly intelligent twelve-year-old atheist who is forced by his parents to attend church/religious school/religious counseling, for example. Morally and ethically, what gives such parents rights over their children?)”

It would not be a perfect system. Nothing is. Without putting much thought into it, I would possibly allow for children to pettition the government for redress of their grievences against their parents, but the threshold and burden of proof would be very high. Religous freedom would still be one of the trickiest areas to intervene in, and better left untouched.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 14:10

Jabber, there have always been more than two sides, always divisions within sides, always self-interest, and always questionable motives on every side. More to the point, even supposedly progressive achievements (considered as such, looking back from the present on a retrospective and linear model) were typically carried out with self-interest in mind and not as part of some larger pattern as in Whig history.

‘Good vs evil’ is the Disneyfied version of history. And it’s not something you’ll find in the writings of any historian worth his salt. On the contrary actually.

History presented in such a way only serves ideology. Just think feminist history and how black and white that is. Or read The Communist Manifesto. I believe it begins with the following, paraphrased: “the history of all hitherto existing society is one of class conflict.”
The thing is, the classes which most often fought in two thousand years of European history were not the peasants/workers/labourers/proletariat against the landlords/bourgeoisie/aristocracy who extracted the surplus from their labours. It was by far battles fought BETWEEN the classes who exploited the workers and peasants. Nobilities vs bourgoisies. Landed classes vs monarchies. Monarchies vs bureaucracies. And so on.

Not that this bothers Marx, who goes on to state nevertheless that history can be reduced to the struggle between the labourers (the good guys!) and their oppressors (the bad guys!) in a myriad of forms which is nevertheless the same basic exploitative relationship. This is incorrect and reductionist on so many levels but that’s my point: black-and-white history is only ever invoked, really, to serve an ideological purpose.

Entire Eastern religions have observed and documented this realty for a long time, and they’ve stuck around because of the truth to their wisdom.

They’ve stuck around because they have maintained their usefulness for those societies, not because they are true. Once a truth stops being useful it tends to be forgotten. There is nothing inherent in truth which causes it to be remembered. And on the other hand, myths can persist for thousands of years.

Do we believe in other ideas simply because of their longevity? Animism beats out Christianity and even the scientific method in that regard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 14:20

Imagine a highly intelligent twelve-year-old atheist who is forced by his parents to attend church/religious school/religious counseling, for example. Morally and ethically, what gives such parents rights over their children?

When the child becomes an adult, he will be a free agent, free to make whatever decision he likes regarding religion. No brainwashing takes place in churches. He will have the autonomy to decide to continue worshipping or not.

A child has not fully developed its capacities for reason nor has it matured sufficiently to be granted the level of autonomy we reserve for adults. Control over a child by parents using coercion (reasonably) is justified on the grounds that it would be worse not to do so. Consider as a parallel (of sorts) that as adults we are still not granted full autonomy, but are coerced into doing and not doing certain things; but it would be far worse if this coercion were not present (e.g. if there were no coercion against murdering other people).

The problem is in considering that coercion itself is a moral wrong, and that the use of coercion or restriction of autonomy cannot be consonant with moral/ethical justification – which is ridiculous. Coercion will always exist. It may be for good or for evil. Clearly, parents need to exercise coercion over their children, and I would consider it a much greater evil for the state to coerce the parents into instilling a particular religion or lack of into their children, than for the parents to coerce a child into following a particular religion or lack of.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
trent13 July 26, 2010 at 14:23

@ Snark: You’re humorous and I appreciate your realizing that I wasn’t trying to use shaming language regarding MRM men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Balance July 26, 2010 at 14:42

I would consider it a much greater evil for the state to coerce the parents into instilling a particular religion or lack of into their children, than for the parents to coerce a child into following a particular religion or lack of.

I would say that’s already going on, Snark. Both parents generally work now, because they have to. The state has them for 6-7 hrs a day, maybe up to 9 or 10 with day care. During this time they are teaching their own version of religion. Good old conditioning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ZenCo. July 26, 2010 at 15:25

Good job everyone for completely ignoring that ‘No One’ jackass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 26, 2010 at 17:11

Snark July 26, 2010 at 14:10

-I guess it takes a brother-in-arms from within the ranks to actually present an effective counter argument to my world views. Lets see if I can wiggle out of this. I’m thinking wiggly thoughts…I am the wiggle…wiggle….be the wiggle…….beee the wiggle……

“Jabber, there have always been more than two sides, always divisions within sides, always self-interest, and always questionable motives on every side. More to the point, even supposedly progressive achievements (considered as such, looking back from the present on a retrospective and linear model) were typically carried out with self-interest in mind and not as part of some larger pattern as in Whig history.”

-Agreed. These ideas don’t invalidate what I said. I did caveat that this dichotomy idea was a simplification for framing reality. It is done for the same reason that a 1 can represent a car, an apple, or a galaxy itself. It is representational, not reality itself. I’m well aware of all the gray area in between and contradictory dualities that sometimes arise.

“‘Good vs evil’ is the Disneyfied version of history. And it’s not something you’ll find in the writings of any historian worth his salt. On the contrary actually.”

-Disney captures the essence of an ideal. Historians should not. He wasn’t being a historian, he was using poetic rhetoric to frame his following ideas, ideas that weren’t necessarily trying to be historically accurate either. In fact, his use of the word history was not meant to imply here are the historic facts, he was just using it as a pretentious way to show the passing of time. He was being very poetic throughout the whole thing. It was just a paragraph long. Not exactly the space needed to convey nuance.

“History presented in such a way only serves ideology.”

-Which we are in the business of. We can claim our ideology is truth, but most people don’t know the truth from their big toe, so we must use emotion, propaganda, and poetic rhetoric to win. Thats all the guy was doing.

“Just think feminist history and how black and white that is. Or read The Communist Manifesto. I believe it begins with the following, paraphrased: “the history of all hitherto existing society is one of class conflict.”

-Looks like the guy was taking good notes in how to present his argument than. Those movements were very successful.

“The thing is, the classes which most often fought in two thousand years of European history were not the peasants/workers/labourers/proletariat against the landlords/bourgeoisie/aristocracy who extracted the surplus from their labours. It was by far battles fought BETWEEN the classes who exploited the workers and peasants. Nobilities vs bourgoisies. Landed classes vs monarchies. Monarchies vs bureaucracies. And so on.”

-Ooookay. And even this is an oversimplification. We can play the “its more complex” game all day long.

“Not that this bothers Marx, who goes on to state nevertheless that history can be reduced to the struggle between the labourers (the good guys!) and their oppressors (the bad guys!) in a myriad of forms which is nevertheless the same basic exploitative relationship. This is incorrect and reductionist on so many levels but that’s my point: black-and-white history is only ever invoked, really, to serve an ideological purpose.”

-Exactly.

Entire Eastern religions have observed and documented this realty for a long time, and they’ve stuck around because of the truth to their wisdom.

“They’ve stuck around because they have maintained their usefulness for those societies, not because they are true.”

-I don’t think Zen helps societies progress much in terms of conquering or subduing the masses. But we could debate that. And if its useful, in a meta-society sense, wouldn’t that imply that there is some truth to it.

“Once a truth stops being useful it tends to be forgotten.”

-Example please.

” There is nothing inherent in truth which causes it to be remembered.”

-Nice try, but no. If you need me to explain, I win immediately.

“And on the other hand, myths can persist for thousands of years.”

-Myths are the closest thing to the distilled essence of truth as primitive societies could achieve. Their truthiness is exactly why they have stuck around.

“Do we believe in other ideas simply because of their longevity? Animism beats out Christianity and even the scientific method in that regard.”

-Christianity says true things, and I like many aspects of animism. Everything has an essence, I just won’t go so far as to call it a soul or spirit.

Your turn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunn July 26, 2010 at 19:40

Snark, Jabber, I don’t like to butt into discussions but eastern mysticism fascinates me so I can’t resist…

The idea that the world is multi-layered and infinitely complex is a favorite starting point for mystical enquiry, which is ultimately about how to make sense of the myriad phenomena around us without the map and the territory becoming equivalent (a map can only be a perfect representation if it is 1:1 scale with the territory, however that makes it somewhat useless for its intended purpose).

Mystical traditions often ask the meditator to lose ‘himself’ in his awareness of reality, i.e. stop the dualistic process wherein ‘good’ and ‘evil’ labels are attached to the objects of sensation. In doing this, the mystic directly comprehends reality without any intermediation of logical frameworks, definitions, and other dualistic paraphernalia. At this stage presumably the mystic sees the full complexity of the cosmos but is unable to transmit any summary of this back to others, because of course the summary is itself dualistic.

However, at some unknown point, the mystic can transcend this awareness of the cosmos and he achieves the enlightenment of simultaneously identifying all things with himself and himself with all things, and all of them together are the same thing. This is an utterly paradoxical state to describe in words, because the complexity of the manifold cosmos continues to exist for the mystic, but he is tranquil in the oneness of it at the same time.

That is the fundamental truth of the eastern religions, and the reason that it persists is because even today anyone who undertakes the mystical journey eventually finds himself at the same realization that has been transmitted from guru to student over thousands of years.

Interestingly, if one reads mystical experiences from christian mysticism (e.g. see Meister Eckhart) or kabbalah or sufism, one sees that they seem to be talking about the same underlying end-goal as the eastern traditions of zen buddhism and vedantic hinduism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer July 26, 2010 at 19:48

The MRM has many bad men in it, who are not yet in prison due to the anonymity of the internet. They must be exposed so that girls are safe.

For folks who may have questions concerning my “no bullshit” clause in the commenting policy, this is a prime example.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
No one July 26, 2010 at 20:33

Christianity, in the past, enslaved countless highly-intelligent 12 year old girls in loveless (for the girl) marriages to old men. The height of patriarchy coincides with widespread acceptance of pedophilia (men lusting after girls), be it Islamic patriarchy or christian patriarchy or Jewish patriarchy. These systems always allow men to rape their wives, additionally. The Men’s Rights Movement harbors men who want to return to such a society where young teenaged girls can be enslaved into marrage by sick men and then forced to perform at his disgression. The spearhead must unequivicobly distance itself from such men and such ideas.

Good men do not marry girls. Good men do not rape their wives. The MRM has many bad men in it, who are not yet in prison due to the anonymity of the internet. They must be exposed so that girls are safe.
.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ZenCo. July 26, 2010 at 20:43

To Gunn:

I too have delved into the Eastern Religions and found some sound solace.
I’ve also found solace in drinking and whoring as well.
The moral? Well, drinking and whoring also allows one to cast off societal mores of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and cast my needs as Earthly sensation.
Not good or bad. Not really ‘needs’ either. Just itches that need scratching.
Scratching an itch doesn’t need justification.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark July 26, 2010 at 23:52

Jabber, I may respond to you in full later, but just one question for now.

What is it that makes you think that truth has an inherent property by which it shall make itself known?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 27, 2010 at 01:41

“For folks who may have questions concerning my “no bullshit” clause in the commenting policy, this is a prime example.”

Ban him please, he’s stinky

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 27, 2010 at 06:08

“What is it that makes you think that truth has an inherent property by which it shall make itself known?”

The scientific method comes to mind.

Before that, the best things available at the time: logic, pattern recognition, and basically reason tested and validated by the eternally patient mentors of time and experience.

I would say that, like you argue, that truth is rarely black and white, but one can’t fully understand all of the gray area until one determines where the terminating edges of the spectrum are. This allows you to see how dark gray or light gray something is within context to absolutes, to the edges of the spectrum. Hence the usefullness of framing more nuanced realities within the context of larger absolute truths. Think of it as a measuring system in that sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 27, 2010 at 06:43

“Christianity, in the past, enslaved countless highly-intelligent 12 year old girls in loveless (for the girl) marriages to old men.”

Brutal times called for brutal laws and restrictions on freedom. Lots of highly intlligent 12 year old boys were conscripted into armies or real slavery, not just loveless marraiges. In Sparta, boys began their torturous training for military life at the age of 7 (I think.).

“The height of patriarchy coincides with widespread acceptance of pedophilia (men lusting after girls), be it Islamic patriarchy or christian patriarchy or Jewish patriarchy.”

You don’t know the definition of pedophilia. It means a man attracted to a pre-pubescent girl, not a very young women. Actual pedophilia is and has always been rare. Men are psychologically evolved to only be attracted to female bodies that can give birth successfully. That means widening hips, fatty deposits, and enlarged breasts that signify maturity. Romeo and Juliet were 13 and 14. Kings were often still pre-teens. People were considered and ready for adulthood at a much earlier age back then.

“These systems always allow men to rape their wives, additionally.”

A man traded his labor and protection for access to a womens sexuality. It was more akin to prostitution. Forced prostitution in some situations, sure, but that isn’t what I consider actual rape. Young men went through far, far worse. Only 40% of men through human history have reproduced, where as 80% of women have. Thats because most men died a horrible death while very young while hunting, fighting, or exploring.

“The Men’s Rights Movement harbors men who want to return to such a society where young teenaged girls can be enslaved into marrage by sick men and then forced to perform at his disgression. The spearhead must unequivicobly distance itself from such men and such ideas.”

We have. Were you not around during the Manhood 101 incident, the MikeUSA debacle, and the Apargus debate? We don’t support or allow commentors to claim an absolute right to a women’s sexuality.

“Good men do not marry girls.”

You should read more history books.

“Good men do not rape their wives.”

I maintain that one cannot rape their wife. One can physically assault their wife, which is wrong, but the sexual part of this forced sex is part of a predetermined agreement between the resource provider and the reproductive provider. Women trade sex to acquire resources. If a married women renigs on that agreement, the women is the first to act unethically, if the man then uses physical cohersion, then he is second to act unethically. I man was enslaved as much by marraige, really more, than any women. His responsibilities were manifoldly more difficult than giving out a little nooky from time to time. So where hers in fact. Sex with their husbands was not a major concern for women throughout history. Making sure their children stayed alive and healthy was.

“The MRM has many bad men in it, who are not yet in prison due to the anonymity of the internet. They must be exposed so that girls are safe.”

Expose away, just don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 27, 2010 at 06:45

“Kings were often still pre-teens.”

I should have said “sometimes” not “often”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy July 27, 2010 at 18:28

“I maintain that one cannot rape their wife. One can physically assault their wife, which is wrong, but the sexual part of this forced sex is part of a predetermined agreement between the resource provider and the reproductive provider”

I have said this over and over too, Jab.
If a woman refuses sex with her husband she is breaking her wedding vows.

Some women feign enthusiastic interest in sex in order to hook the guy into marriage. The kids come along and the poor guy is left high and dry. These women never really cared for sex in the first place (or their husbands- else they would be happy to put out ) They would MAKE time for sex and intimacy!

A 30 year old married female friend recently confided to me that many of her girlfriends from her school days(whom she still sees) have admitted to not ever having had an orgasm!
Pretty sad, eh?

Of course they fake it and hubby is none the wiser.. Sadder still. :(

Anecdotally this seems to be more common than I first thought.

” Women trade sex to acquire resources”

Not me mate!

I’ll be blunt.
I cook nice things for hubby. I give him a back rub when he gets home from work. Have a cold beer waiting. Send him risque text messsages during the day….. I playfully grab him when the kids aren’t looking ;)

Now, I don’t do this because I want a diamond ring , for example..(only ring I have is my wedding ring which has never come off my finger since the day hubby slipped it on)

I do it because I love him and want to have sex with him.

Simple as that.

Personally, Jab, I think that a married woman who refuses to put out for her hubby should be placed in “the stocks” until she comes to her senses..

Hmmm, conjures thoughts of…..ah, nevermind ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keith July 27, 2010 at 18:43

@ trent13

“The title of the article is Patriarchy for Dummies – and what I am “attacking” him on is not the idea that men are victims, but that men are victims and have always been victims because that is the intrinsic nature of Patriarchy, to victimize men.”

The greatest danger to men and women is that a men’s movement becomes feminism 2.0.

The point that feminism missed in the last 40 years is that patriarchy also victimized men. It is specifically the point that most women refuse to assimilate into their social understanding of men even now.
Patriarchy(as it is currently defined and understood by feminists) was and is a shit deal for men. Unfortunately that part they don’t get, by choice.

The first wave of its momentum began with industrial urbanization. The second wave that increased it’s momentum was established as a post war urbanization.

I will use the term urban patriarchy and rural patriarchy, because I believe it aptly represents a division of the expression and experience of the separation between men and women.

Rural patriarchy was I believe, empowering to the participants. Healthy and fulfilling. I plow the field you cook the meal and we’ll both work from sun up to sun down. Equality was visible, again equality was visible. We prosper together or we starve together. Patriarchy resided outside the home, matriarchy resided inside the home.

Urban patriarchy doesn’t and has never existed. To quote you directly, “it is an ego centric construct” – (of feminism). Although urban matriarchy thrives within the home. It may be more accurate to call urban patriarchy a politically capitalist altruism that monetizes men. But I guess feminists went for the sound bite.
To explain to you that this has victimized men will never be as powerful as welcoming you into the mediocre workplace of the daily grind that will shape you meaninglessly into the nothingness of boredom for dollars.
Death by earning.
(Jesus I’m scaring myself here, anybody got a romance novel)
Or possibly slamming an assault rifle in your hand and inviting you to visit your glory, permanently.

The fact of the matter is men have nothing to explain to women and nothing to justify. Women have problems to solve and men have their own problems to solve. The fact that men meet in blogs to discuss and exchange the nature of their pain, disappointments, betrayals, fears, hopes and hostilities is profound.
For corporate feminism to extend a gender product branding onto masculinity is no longer acceptable. I happen to agree with Paul Elam in massive ways that exceed the myopic navel gazing of the feminist perception.

I would suggest to you that what is defined by feminists as “patriarchy” is in truth the male construct of socialization. It does not seek to extinguish or exterminate matriarchy, and has in fact resided beside matriarchy for thousands of years. Feminism has sought to define that construct within the extreme boundaries of alpha supremacy. It is not and never will be representative of the average man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keith July 27, 2010 at 19:04

@ Jabberwocky

Do you suppose that when a woman refers to her mate as one of the children that when she engages in sex with him she is in fact engaging a form of pedophilia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
trent13 July 27, 2010 at 19:27

Rural patriarchy was I believe, empowering to the participants. Healthy and fulfilling. I plow the field you cook the meal and we’ll both work from sun up to sun down. Equality was visible, again equality was visible. We prosper together or we starve together. Patriarchy resided outside the home, matriarchy resided inside the home.

No such thing. Patriarchy and matriarchy never lovingly lived side by side. Just because mama was cooking and cleaning and working inside the home, just because she might have been given predominance over how to decorate, where to move the furniture, what food to buy, and the education of the children, does not mean it was matriarchy. At the end of the day, what papa said goes – that’s patriarchy. There is no “equal” footing in a patriarchy – he may be kind enough to listen to her input; it might in fact be worth his while to do so, but he doesn’t have to and is not obliged to.

Equality implies that both parties have an obligation to recognize in each other equal authority or right, but what you call “rural patriarchy” was inherently hierarchal. And appropriately so. The husband decides the fate of the family – it’s his right and his God-given duty to do so. If men begrudge having that responsibility or shirk that responsibility they are hurting society just as effectively as any radical feminist does.

I had a hard time following your distinctions between urban and rural patriarchy, but if you are equating urban patriarchy with feminism’s definition of it, I would agree with you, it has never existed, and that would be why I consider the article misleading. But I don’t understand the connection you draw between having a shitty job and the phantom urban patriarchy. If you hate your job, change your job – you are a man, be manly and do what you want to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunn July 27, 2010 at 20:23

The idea that rural lifestyles were idyllic is nonsense. Farming is hard, and if the crops fail you’re in trouble. Early industrialisation too was hard for the people caught up in it, and whose lives were often nasty and short because of it.

Patriarchy results in strong power for older females in society. This is not matriarchy in the home, this is simply patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a transfer of power from women to men, it is a transfer of power from young women to older women.

Men gain reproductive assurances through patriarchy, but not power as such. In return for knowing that their children are really theirs, they dedicate their lives to their family’s success. The final decision-making power that in theory demonstrates their power under patriarchy is an illusion – firstly, patriarchal societies tend to have strong religious frameworks which direct men’s behaviour in their role as the family head; and secondly, their ‘power’ was never tested in the domestic arena, because that was simply not the place for men to exercise power.

Men’s power under patriarchy is really the power of a caretaker, in charge of making things work for the people he supports. Feminists have misrepresented this power as a hedonistic, self-serving power when in reality it was selfless dedication to the concept of family and future generations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky July 28, 2010 at 08:23

“keith July 27, 2010 at 19:04
@ Jabberwocky

Do you suppose that when a woman refers to her mate as one of the children that when she engages in sex with him she is in fact engaging a form of pedophilia.”

Emotioinal pedophilia would possibly describe the relationship as a whole, maybe not the sex. Some women want to be mothers to the whole world. Sounds nice, but really, is any women worthy of being a mother to the whole world. Sounds a bit tyrannical in a way. Whats worse is the emotional incest many single moms foster onto their male children. Thats a whole topic on its own.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: