Ask Dr. Helen: Are Men Keeping Other Men Down?
Are men in this country keeping other men down? Do you ever wonder if part of the anti-male bias in this country has to do with various groups of men keeping other groups of men down? I am not saying here that women are not responsible for anti-male bias — they are. But much of the bias against men is also tolerated because of a number of professional or business men in this country who benefit from, or get accolades for, spitting on their brothers. Or, sometimes, the problem is just apathy or chivalry on the part of ordinary men.
Let me give you an example of the professional man who keeps other men down. If you work in — or are involved in — academia, you will know what I mean. There are a number of older guys, in their sixties or so, who worked with the civil rights movement and considered this their heyday. They are now full professors who pride themselves on helping women and minorities get ahead. They come into every faculty meeting harping about the need to give a step-up to the women in the department or they demand that a minority be hired for some position, meanwhile overlooking the qualified men who should also be in the running. You, the young, untenured guy in the department, often wonder why this deadwood won’t step down if he cares so much — and give up his much-coveted chair to some minority. But no such luck, the guy is reveling in his position and perks, all the while demanding that men like you give up the right to theirs. You realize that if this traitor was looking to get hired as tenured faculty today, he might not stand a chance. Does this sound all too familiar?
But that’s just academia, where a lot of weird stuff happens that doesn’t really translate over to the “real world,” right? Wrong. Take a look at what is happening to men down on their luck in the real world — the “justice” system. There also, we see the family court system, often with male judges who have no qualms about giving fellow men the shaft. The reason for this, according to Stephen Baskerville, author of Taken Into Custody, is often attributed to simple, old-fashioned prejudice:
Though formal legal equality between the genders inhibits judges from expressing their biases openly, occasionally, some still do. “I ain’t never seen a calf following a bull,” declares a Georgia superior court judge. “They always follow the cow. So I always give custody to the mamas.”
Last time I looked, cows and bulls weren’t heading to divorce court. It sounds like this judge needs to go work as a farmhand rather than working to destroy people’s lives. Times have changed and many “chivalrous” male judges haven’t changed with them.
Even rich men are hurt by this biased system set up and perpetuated by their fellow men. Even Paul McCartney with all of his success and money was caught up in the court system in England. He had to hand over millions, time with his daughter, and property to Heather Mills — and this was considered a triumph! The summary of the divorce judgment indicates that the judge based the award on what looks like an antiquated law of chivalry — no doubt drafted by men:
The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.
What would have happened had McCartney not been rich? He might be toiling away at some job now to pay off his ex just for the privilege of her company for four years. Male chivalry on the part of the court system here and in England plays a part in handing over these outrageous awards. The system — instituted and maintained by many men, as well as women — works to keep men financially down.
In terms of high-level businessmen such as CEOs or politicians, I think it was Scott Adams or Drew Carey or one of those Dilbert-like guys who said in response to the constant outcry that men run the world, “those are other men.” Whoever said it — I have searched high and low for this quote and finally gave up — was correct. The majority of men are not Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, or even Bill Moyers. The majority are just your average Joe trying to make it through the day like everyone else. In a speech to the American Psychological Association entitled “Is There Anything Good about Men?” Roy F. Baumeister points out that while it looks like all men are at the top, the majority are not:
When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? U.S. Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men.
The problem is that the men at the top both simultaneously give the illusion that all men are on top and at the same time, some — not all by any means; many leaders are quite fine — hurt other men by setting rules and regulations for those under them that damage all men further. How do they do it? Once they have made it, these men try to change the rules for others. Bill Gates made his fortune by using the capitalist system — now that he has his billions, this system is only worthy of his contempt. And don’t get me started on what Bill Clinton has done with sexual harassment law that has left men in his wake vulnerable to lawsuits and losing their livelihoods and their reputations. Notice that Bill has never really suffered too much for his transgressions; he has made millions, is still in the public eye, and doesn’t seem to be suffering despite selling his fellow brethren down the river.
Finally, ordinary men also keep other men down (see this comment section at my blog for more on this). Chivalrous men who think women can’t make it on their own and need men’s protection at any cost, as well as men who stick their head in the sand (ostriches) and blame other men for their problems or say that the problem does not exist, only serve to perpetuate misandry in the culture. In addition, men are indoctrinated to say bad things about other men. How many times do you hear men saying “he’s a dog, a deadbeat, a loser,” often without proof? And these are their friends. Some men buy into the “men are evil” myth hook, line, and sinker. It is often not warranted.
What do you think, are men playing a role in the anti-male bias in our society?
________________________________________________
If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc. And of course, if anyone has experience dealing with this issue, please comment also.
Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.
This is so silly. Silly because the answer is so obvious.
Males and females do this all the time to each other, be it from jealousy, fear of being “one-upped” by another, disgust of another person, mistrust, general dislike or any number of things or reasons.
Insecurity lurks in everyone.
I stayed in an unhappy marriage for almost 12 years and supported my wife while she got her career established, because I was raised to believe this is what a husband did. You didn’t just leave because things weren’t going the way you imagined you would; it was a commitment.
When she wanted a house, I bought her a house. I made all the payments. When the house needed a new roof, I bought a roof.
When my business suffered a downturn and I told her we’d have to move, she agreed that we should sell the house — and that I should give her half the money, because she was no longer interested in having a relationship.
It was too much work, she said.
We’re currently in the process of divorcing.
Yeah, men are jerks alright… or at least idiots. I know I was.
Well, it is hard to argue with this. Men are just people, too. But, women are hurt by this bias, too. If a man is not successful, that is one less good marriage prospect for a woman.
If you want a good example of anti-male bias, just think about what rights/privileges a man gets the day he gets married.
Hmmm…. Nobody I know can name even one.
But responsibilities abound for the married man.
In divorce proceedings, the man almost always gets hammered. The more he has done for his wife, the more the court hammers him, too.
Is it any wonder that men these days seem to be in no rush to avoid marriage?
Now, this avoidance of marriage in no way injures men, but, it does injure women. Women I know in their mid twenties are getting nervous about not having a suitable marriage partner in sight. Because of our anti-male societal bias, many young men are not really good marriage prospects. And, because of their reproductive biology, women need to get serious about marriage before they are 30. Men don’t. So, these women will either not find suitable partners or will have to marry older men. Neither option is especially attractive.
Just something to think about.
“‘I ain’t never seen a calf following a bull,’ declares a Georgia superior court judge. ‘They always follow the cow. So I always give custody to the mamas.’”
I’ve never seen a bull suckling a calf or a cow. By this logic, alimony and child support can be abolished, yes?
Yes men are the core problem that is “feminsim”.
It is the way the modern human male fights other males over the spoils (females).
It is all very bio deterministc ans unwitting in that taboo darwin way.
The extreme form of this would be men who support genderless marriage. The vast majority of them are between women—essentially encouraging women to form partnerships that cut men out of the equation entirely (except perhaps to tax men’s earnings to pay for their babies’ needs). The women impregnate themselves with the sperm donor of their choosing and never even have to interact with those lowly regular men. Gentlemen, you are facilitating emasculation.
Dr. Helen, I think the inclusion of “minority” in your article distracts from your point. I kept thinking back to Jesse Helms ads, which is probably not what you intended.
I always wondered why men so easily gave up their sperm (seed) for science or impersonal procreation. Maybe their tendency to want to distance sexual pleasure from the possible result of female pregnancy and therefore a connection and responsibility with her. Or for some, flattered that their seed is so valuable to others. Maybe they just wanted the money not realizing what they were giving up. I wonder if some regret giving it away so easily for a pittance and that there may be a child or children in the world they will never meet. Now for the question. Definitely men hold each other down. It’s called competition, and the game is not played fairly, but then again what in this world is fair. If you think that there is no competition in a woman’s world guess again. Do men use women? yes. Do women use men? yes Do men use men, woman use women, men use children, women use children, etc, etc,? yes, yes and yes. In the end I guess it is how you conduct yourself in this life that matters most. I think that if you seek someone who is as like-minded as you and are fortuate enough to meet that special person this hard life can be easier. I would like to know when this war between men and women started and who it benefits. Maybe I already know the answer.
Lynn it is not simple competition that’s causing the oppression. In the example of the family court judge, the judge is not actually competing with the man. Instead this man has bought into the self effacing feminist myth that men are worse parents and deserve to be burdened.
Excellent point. I would add that alpha males often try to keep younger men down… because they do not want the competition. And if an alpha male professor is surrounded by young female assistant professors, women whose careers he has championed, doesn’t this feel a little like having a harem?? Surely, it is better than having a bunch of younger male assistant professors trying to supplant him.
My immediate three supervisors are women, two of which are minority. In the past 8 years, I’ve had one or two male supervisors. I work in healthcare, which has had a long history of paternalistic doctors, but that is changing. It’s not always easy working for a woman. Often times, I feel like I hear more about personal issues than work-related ones. The amount of time that is devoted to gossiping is alarming. No wonder the productivity rates of America are dropping. The predominate way to react to something is emotionally. That can be so draining, but I think it’s the way women are hard-wired. I have to tune out these days and put my headphones on if I want to get through a project.
I can’t comment too much on men stabbing other men in the back. I will say this though, we could use a dose of “John Wayne” mentality in our culture. I’m sick of hearing about, or having to tip-toe around this or that for the sake of acrimony or hurt feelings. It’s a strange dichotomy, we are simultaneously becoming ultra-sensitive, but more violent in our American society. Is the violence or harshness a response to the emotional minutiae we must navigate on a daily basis?
you know, Dr. Helen, there are equal-opportunity obnoxious people everywhere. One area’s misandry is another area’s misogyny.
IMHO we are all to quick to spin stats into conspiracies.
It’s not “other men” keeping men down.
It’s me. I’m the one keeping men down.
And just you try to stop me, pig.
Darleen,
“One area’s misandry is another area’s misogyny.”
The problem is that our culture only takes the later seriously and overlooks the former.
Yes, men are keeping other men down and this has been going on for centuries, just like women were keeping men down except when they wanted to look up to a man. There is also something like the warrior-saint at work, the complementary part of the whore-lady dichotomy. However, the general idea that women are good and men bad, or in other terms all men are evil warriors and all women are by implication noble ladies is a misconception invented by women, not by men. That men, especially in power positions, use this idea as saints while still playing the warrior role towards other men shouldn’t surprise us. While they are, in my view, traitors for the men’s right case -in terms of a class struggle-, they are still traditional role-players.
I am, what is called, a serial entrepreneur, meaning I help fund and build start-up businesses. I have had a fair degree of success financially but its a “eat what you kill business.” Men in my business don’t keep other men down – if another man can’t help me with my new business I ignore him and move on. If he can help – great. If he is blocking our growth we run him over if we can. Law of the Jungle.
Its a tough way to live at times, but the upside potential is significant. I shared most of my greatest success with my ex-wife who filed for divorce when she learned of how my business was really taking off (We were separated at the time – I had left her).
So, for budding serial entrepreneurs, don’t get married or get a pre-nup. Most women will take you for everything you got and then punish you some more. They ain’t worth it. Get a dog for companionship and a mistress for everything else – its a lot cheaper.
“…this has been going on for centuries”
It is particularly bad in the last few decades because of political correctness. Men are supposedly bad—especially white men. The culture says that they must be punished. Some men subconsciously wish to curry favor with the “elites” and therefore go along with the persecution. This nonsense is only to get far worse if the mediocre “Barry” Obama is elected. It will encourage the idiots to get even crazier.
Many men become feminized when they are dominated by their wives. As such they behave like women.
Recent experience:
I had to finally put my foot down and call a woman’s behavior unacceptable: she was attempting to overcome me by horning in on my statements and was grinding down other board members by insisting on art production conditions for members participation in gallery shows that were several years down the road. As a result, she avoids talking to me at group functions (3 different groups): no problem.
I just recently completed curating a juried exhibition and was finishing up the final hanging — her ceramic piece was included — when her husband – who is the better artist but does little as wifey has so dominated him he has no studio or place to work – tells me her piece was set up for hanging, not to be on a flat surface. Fine with me and I proceeded to give the piece an excellent spot on the wall. Only later do I learn he spent considerable time that morning whining and complaining to the figure drawing group that I was dissing his wife. I became disgusted with the fellow and decided he was a useless drone.
I have begun to be able to spot the type as I deal with more males in my art groups.
As just one societal symptom of emasculation, try to find a TV commercial that doesn’t show a man as a buffon at best and an idiot at worst. I doubt that those commercials were made exclusively by women.
IIRC a study that showed homosexual males’ brains behave in manners similar to females. I wonder if feminized or emasculated males’ brains would be shown to behave likewise.
The Scott Adams quote is from The Dilbert Future (p. 108):
You can find the quote by searching the book for in on Amazon here.
Cheers.
What about the feminists who do the same thing? American women got rights, but don’t care about women worldwide. “I got mine,” means people can slack off the battle?
Agreed with this. Chivalry, and the entire concept of overbearing male “responsibility”, needs to have a stake put through its heart once and for all. Let’s clarify this: our only hard-and-fast responsibilities that anyone has to any other person are clearly defined in the laws of whatever jurisdiction they live in. Beyond this, there are social conventions, based upon a reciprocal grant of position within a social setting under those conventions, that impose a few other expectations. As men’s position and prestige in society has waned, so too ought those expectations. Anything beyond this comes from nothing more than generosity and magnanimity, which we are under no obligation to show.
So men need to stop being generous, with our time, rights, lives, and property, and need to stop encouraging other men to do so as well. Atlas needs to shrug. Men’s rights activists are guilty as well, in this, for too often promoting the old, dead “father knows best” notion and trying to revive a dead ideal. Forget “being a man” for anyone else, do what’s best for yourself.
Ever wonder about all those CEOs who were SOOOO emphatically in favor of affirmative action for women and minorities? There jobs were never at risk from shortchanging the white males under them. On the other hand, the entrance of large numbers of women into the work place held down wages and salaries – to the benefit of the bottom line.
Time for a change of American elites.
I agree with Marc…bring back John Wayne. In fact bring back those ‘men’ who were proud to be Americans. Instead what do we get? Sean Penn. Danny Glover. Harry Belefonte. And all those whiners and weasels who hate the very country that gave them their opportunities and, I may add, their money. I say, move ‘em to Venezuela and let their best friend, Hugo, take care of them.
Yes, I want the John Wayne types back. Perhaps they’d quell some of this PC nonsense. When oh when is that pendulum going to swing back and PC will just mean Personal Computer?
Are men taking out other men? Perhaps. Then the ones who are lying down and taking it need to move on or learn how to stick up for themselves.
It’s not just commercials. See if you can name three post-1970 sitcoms that don’t portray the husband/father as a clueless moron. “The Cosby Show” is the only one that most people can think of.
This has been going on for a long time. I’m in the cast of a theatrical production of “Peter Pan” that opens tonight. Wendy’s mother is portrayed as a wonderful, loving, and wise woman. Wendy’s father is a pompous, clueless, whining jackass.
David,
You rock, I must have searched for that quote for hours in all the Dilbert books by Adams and the Drew Carey book, “Dirty Jokes and Beer.” I appreciate it.
It’s all a matter of taste. A hundred years ago to be a man was just fine, but to be homosexual was taboo. Now, being homosexual is perfectly acceptable, but being a man is frowned upon. I simply wonder what will be unfashionable next year.
You’ve neglected mentioning the disparate treatment in the workplace. Older men in management are sweet as sugar to their female employees while treating entry-level men like frat pledges or Marine corps privates, with them as Sgt. Hartman.
I’ve even had a former boss admit to me–in a moment of weakness–that he never respected or got along with his father, and subsequently, always had trouble working with men. His statement was sandwiched between 22 months of sadistic and inefficient management before I got fed up an resigned, and not without a big shakeup to my career. It’s a pain in the ass having to work with crazy people.
There is nothing more dangerous to other men today than a chivalrous man who refuses to accept the fact that times have changed. Though, sometimes it seems that that “chivalry” is nothing more than a badly veiled contempt for other men.
While I was interested in the intended subject matter of this post, what caught my eye in particular was the comment about Bill Gates having contempt for the capitalism that made him rich. He shares this trait with other hyper-rich men, like Warren Buffoon and George Soros. These guys run off to Davos every year to figure out ways to sabotage capitalism and free markets so that no one else could ever again become as rich as they are. And what about so many of the second-tier wealthy, like that terminal ass-hat Ted Turner? Who but an idiot would give, or try to give, $1 billion to the U.N.?
Thank you for this insightful article. I second the desire for more John Wayne types in this country.
To my dismay though, if Europe is any indication of a trend, I am afraid we are headed further towards an emasculated society. Almost daily I encounter the results of feminist myths which have been promoted, dare I say shoved down our throats, at every turn in the last 40 years. I regularly find myself wanting to vomit at the words and actions of “men” around me. It is sad and pathetic. It is also discouraging as a still young man in my late twenties desperately searching for real men to look up to and learn from.
On a potentially brighter side though, there are many others recognizing this dangerous trend even in the upper echelons of the Hollywood elite. Some may even be doing so unwittingly or simply identifying what the American public really desires and playing to it for the financial payoff. Examples of such films may include Lord of the Rings, new Rocky, Chronicles of Narnia, new Die Hard, HBO John Adams series, Amazing Grace, Cinderella Man and others.
Women have always controlled the world, acting through men. Now that they can wield power in their own right, acting directly, they continue acting through men when necessary to maintain their power. Men who protest against this system are left having to contend with powerful women and still having to contend with the remaining powerful men, all of whom are controlled by women.
Your thesis is borne out by my personal experience and observations.
For several years, I practiced law in a mid-sized southern city, spending about 1/3 of my time defending men in domestic violence and violation of Order Of Protection cases. The domestic court for the county issued the overwhelming majority of Order of Protections in the state. The judge, an overall decent, brilliant,well-intentioned man with a Eastern-liberal education was a “true believer” in the “epidemic” of domestic violence. Being contemporaries, and southern men raised in the 60′s and early 70′s to respect and protect women, its understandable that he favored woman claiming victim-hood.
He became the darling of women’s groups and the media and received their enthusiastic support every election year. He gained additional political clout because of the huge fees generated for county coffers. It was an all around win-win situation for him: the good feeling of “being on the right side” of an issue, public adulation, and political power.
At least 95% of the time, he ruled in favor of the petitioner, who was, 95% of the time, a woman. Given those circumstances and the fact that the law allowed judges to award “temporary” possession of homes, support, child support, custody and visitation, women rushed to the court to gain advantage in divorce cases, because as a practical matter, “temporary” orders tend to become permanent. Attorneys, myself included, advised their clients to win the race to the courthouse and file and file OP petitions before their spouse/partner/paramour did. If you were male, and weren’t an attorney, it wasn’t a fun place to be, but the judge was oblivious to that fact: expressing that opinion in court wasn’t smart.
Oh well, you know what they say…….road to hell…..good intentions………
I’ve thought the same thing for a long time. I’ve made it a point to notice the credits on the most misandrist movies and TV shows. The movies where men are all SOBs and women are saints, or where men are being beat up by women, shot by women, killed and having their genitals smashed by women, (always deservedly so!) the writers and directors are almost invariably men.
I am perplexed by this self hatred, but you see it everywhere in the media. Unless and until men get some form of self pride, this will continue. The question is, how will they learn it in the present culture?
It is sad commentary when men start believing the negative words that others attribute to them. And it is just as bad to watch men give up and throw in the towl, especially when it comes to things as important as chivalry and good conduct.
Okay, so it sucks out there and the odds are against you. But it shouldn’t stop you from courtesy or doing what is right, whether it be for a man or woman. Yeah, don’t be a doormat and not protect yourself or make poor decisions. But, don’t turn into some whiny turd either. There’s a difficult third road of teflon self-respect, and that one is far more intrisically satisfying.
Hal, I certainly didn’t mean Jesse Helms. My point is that senior white males talk about diversity, but are primarily interested in looking good and building up their own positions. If they really wanted to help women and minorities, wouldn’t they retire early, and open up a slot?
sudz
Chivalry becomes the mask behind which one operates to get his way: just like the “elites” use manners; just like the southern church lady and her “Christian ” mask (that was one my last lessons I learned before I left the south). It is like the southern gentlemens’ clap on the back(see “Mind of the South”): a way to delude and control the recipient and hide the knife. If it is anything else, then is will be a weapon used against men.
——————————-
“THOSE ARE OTHER MEN”
Yes, not only in society and business but, remember, also in politics: don’t think that for one minute that the leadership of the Conservative movement hasn’t more in common with their leftwing classmates than with the lower rungs of the movement. To such, we are the dirty masses: we weren’t educated at the right Ivy League schools, nor do we hobnob with the right people.
“BackwardsBoy:
As just one societal symptom of emasculation, try to find a TV commercial that doesn’t show a man as a buffon at best and an idiot at worst. I doubt that those commercials were made exclusively by women.”
Marketers know that women make, or have controlling input of, about 80% of the consumer purchases in the US. Marketers also know that men are pragmatic, we’re concerned about the quality of the product, not the nature of the advertising campaign, so we’ll buy beer and cars from companies who mock men in their commercials. Women, on the other hand, generally won’t buy anything from a company they perceive as disrespecting women.
The Sisterhood is even more powerful than compound interest.
Women have always controlled the world, acting through men.
What stick behind my back? I’m just a weak woman. I have no stick behind my back. You men just want to put women down. You’re such a brute. I should hit you with this stick.
Societies that “oppress” women do so because the women who raise the children in those societies raise them with certain expectations of the roles of females. It’s not the men who cut off women’s clitorises, it’s their mothers and aunts.
Most would regard Orthodox Judaism as a patriarchy, with male-only rabbis making the rules. However, it’s the women of the community who determine who is accepted as a member of that community and who is a pariah. Women almost 100% run the girls’ schools so the attitudes of women are the result of being indoctrinated by women. It’s the women of that community that enforce standards for behavior and dress.
I have a small embroidery business. Walk into any Judaica shop and look at the yarmulkes, skull caps, for young boys. While you may find a handful with sports graphics, most of the embellished yarmulkes are embellished with floral motifs – because Mom is the one who is buying it. Some women in the community operate home businesses selling clothes – it’s hard to find modest enough clothing in major stores. I’ve seen flyers advertising “matching brother-sister outfits”. Like any boy who is old enough to know that he’s a boy want to be dressed like his sister.
Societies that “oppress” women do so because the women who raise the children in those societies raise them with certain expectations of the roles of females. It’s not the men who cut off women’s clitorises, it’s their mothers and aunts.
And why? So they will be “marriageable”.
Go figure, as you Americans say.
As the daughter of a raging women’s libber, it has always set my teeth on edge when women talk about how awful me are. “What about my dad?” I always say. “What about my sons?”
Urggggg – drives me crazy.
I flipped quickly through some of these comments so I might have missed this, but in my divorce experience, the idea for the lawyers and the judge was to make decisions in the best interests of the kids, not to punish their father.
And last comment… My (older white professor) dad had a harem of younger female colleagues. They were terrific and loyal, a huge support to both him and my mom during the last 10 years of his life. Yay rah for the harem.
Helen, this is a great post. If pursued,there’s enough here to turn into a book.
I’ll only speak about men here. On average males are status seeking creatures, and position is important. In many arenas…the corporate world, small business, sports, military, etc., the hierarchy is pretty well sorted out, and has rules and criteria. Mostly, and I say mostly, it’s a merit-based system, applying to both men and women. It’s all pretty well accepted.
But as an ex-professor I can speak to one of the dynamics that’s particularly evident in the university culture. I’ll leave it to you to try to sort it out. Most university men are physical cowards, and cowards tend to be bullies. The status rules and criteria are murky. And there’s a lot of intellectual pettiness. The status-striving is often very distasteful and slimy. The cowards, who are bullies, grab for whatever power is available. If it includes being a PC suck-up, they do it, and they’re willing to trash their own gender because it gives them status and power in this mucky, murky world. It’s puke. When you’re around these men you come away feeling very slimy.
These comments do not apply to real scholars who actually produce real intellectual value and do real research. But they are surrounded by a host of truly hideous “men.” I left because I didn’t like being there.
“Women have always controlled the world, acting through men.”
Hilarious! In what culture does this phenomona take place?
I will venture a guess that the 400 girls rescued from the FLDS compound in our lovely state of Texas missed the lecture on that day.
“MikeT: There is nothing more dangerous to other men today than a chivalrous man who refuses to accept the fact that times have changed. Though, sometimes it seems that that “chivalry” is nothing more than a badly veiled contempt for other men.”
If you’ve ever watched Donny Deutsch’s “Big Idea” show on CNBC you’ve seen exactly what you describe played out on the boob tube. Deutsch loves to go on and on about how superior women are and how much better they are than men. He’s simply idealizing himself in comparison to other men (which is of course, just a big ego wank for him) and is engaging in the phony edginess that is de rigeur amongst rich, white liberals by simply parroting the culture’s conventional wisdom about the alleged vast superiority of women. “I’m so down with women!!!” Oh, you’re so brave and noble, Donny! The guy’s a real piece of work.
Hilarious: ddc, you miss the part where the actual “patriarchy” _that is western civilization_ (and has been for millenia) ‘rescued’ those 400 (breaking its own constitutional rules to do so) on behalf of and at the behest of… wimmin.
So the original contention (“Women have always controlled the world, acting through men.”) not only stands despite your presented evidence to counter that contention, it stands through your evidence.
Why can’t people like you see this glaringly obvious stuff for yourselves?…
FP
Interesting spin. Care to attempt that same spin regarding our Catholic Priests and little boys?
Sadly you don’t see the obvious irony in your “constitutional rules” that were broken statement? Which rules were these exactly? Let me guess, the “respect” of a cult’s “religious freedom” of elder men to rape children that the the San Angelo Sheriff hesitated for four years to do anything about while knowing all along the crimes being committed? That one? Who exactly penned those “rules?” Certainly not a woman if there was even a woman present at said penning. A religion dominated by men, protected by men not unlike every religion in this country and the next, which are all dominated by men.
All preposterous nonsense of yours aside…men have held each other down through time eternal. Men cockbock each other whether it be for political, educational, financial or sexual reasons. It’s unfortunate to be sure. Evidentally, as a species basically one step on the evolutionary ladder above the chimp, we’ve got a lot more evolving to do.
>Interesting spin.
Not spin at all; just big picture.
>Care to attempt that same spin regarding our >Catholic Priests and little boys?
“Priest and little boys” not germane at all.
—-
You have very tiny mind. That is not an insult. It is a diagnosis.
======
To all
Testing and eugenics is the only thing that is going to stop this problem. Preception is aptitude based.
FP,
“you have very tiny mind”
Denial and ignorance alone suggests you are part of the very large problem Dr. Helen’s article tries to address that we find ourselves in.
Sh!te talker = bully = tiny d!ck
Bravo FP, good job feeding the preception.
Great point … Today we see plenty of research that alleges that women are better managers … the research is ridiculous and cannot possibly make the assertions it does. Further have any of these researchers actually worked for women or feminized cultures? They are horrible! There is the appearance of openness yet the level of passive aggressive behavior is so high most of the time is spent trying to figure out what people are feeling and really politicking to achieve.
I think that many corporate alphas create feminized cultures to dominate through female tactics to avoid superior alphas from unseating them. Real alphas can today live in small firms, technology companies and consulting.
Women have successfully used their ability to generate sympathy to get ahead in many organizations. There are mentor programs fro women but none for men. Why?
Candice,
Take the case of an alpha male such as Eliot Spitzer. Great crusader against illegal prostitution and corrupt wall-streeters. A superman amoung men, yet the perfect picture of corruption himself. Good for him – not for other men. Not discounting other psychological issues the guy had this is only another type of example of male c0ckblocking.
Utilizing women to create “feminized cultures” works because women also tend more toward “loyality” to an employer. Women also may have more to lose by not doing so. There are so many dynamics.
There are plenty mentoring/coaching orgs who mentor both men and women equally. Women typically have been more receptive toward utilizing them. Men often dislike asking for direction or help of any kind, whereas women have no problem doing so.
“Sh!te talker = bully = tiny d!ck”
Exhibit A.
When pressed they always resort to questioning men’s sexual adequacy. Of course if someone responded with
Feminist misandrist = bitch = frigid
ddc would get hysterical.
And yes, I choose my words very deliberately.
“Men often dislike asking for direction or help of any kind, whereas women have no problem doing so.”
When you don’t get lost you don’t often need to ask directions.
Men are traditionally taught to be self-reliant, not whiners. If men are so helpless, it’s amazing that they managed to figure out science, math & engineering. Also, I’m willing to bet that the majority of engineers and software coders who developed Mapquest and Google Maps are men. The GPS system was certainly developed primarily by men. If we’re so bad at asking for directions, how come we’re so good at giving them?
Perhaps men are less likely to ask for directions because there are measurable differences in spatial abilities between the sexes.
“Studies have concluded that men tend to pay more attention to the way their surroundings are laid out, which may explain why they generally score better on tasks like 3D shapes and angles. Researchers have also found that, on average, men are better at finding compass orientations and rely on mental images of three dimensional spaces to find their way.
Women were more likely to notice landmarks, which could be linked to their higher scores on the spot the difference task. Research has shown that women are more likely to use memorised routes and landmarks to stay on track.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/spatial_tests.shtml
When men ask for help, it’s to solve a problem because men tend to be goal oriented. Women ask for help because they want a supportive atmosphere. If someone says they are troubled by something, men will offer constructive advice while women will offer empathy.
“There are plenty mentoring/coaching orgs who mentor both men and women equally. Women typically have been more receptive toward utilizing them.”
It would be interesting to survey those mentors/coaches to see what their reaction would be if one of their ‘students’ rejected their advice, and if there are any differences in that regard between male and female mentors.
“ddc:
FP
Interesting spin. Care to attempt that same spin regarding our Catholic Priests and little boys?”
Apparently, little boys are better off with Catholic priests than they are with female teachers: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
Women, at present, are not required to and do not accept the same level of responsiblity at all levels of society that men are required to accept and do accept. Take a good long read through the article I linked.
From my link – here’s an amusing anecdote:
“Cameo Patch, 29: Substitute teacher at Tooele High School in Tooele, Utah, arrested for allegedly performing oral sex on a 17-year-old male student. The sexual activity was allegedly consensual, and reportedly took place off school grounds after the pair had exchanged phone numbers in a restaurant. In November 2006, Patch was sentenced to no jail time, despite comments from the judge that a man would have likely gone to prison.“
According to Gary: “The cowards, who are bullies, grab for whatever power is available.” Whatever “power?” = “tiny mind” sh!te talk, as per FP. which usually translates = tiny dick or short.
As to your, feminists=bitches=frigid? They could be, but since I honestly don’t know any i’ll concede the point that maybe you do.
Putting aside the scientfic reasoning behind which sex is more visual or goal oriented which is interesting, as is the case with most stereotypes that linger about the sexes, including the two above, “men never stop to ask for directions” didn’t come about without some truth behind it.
Django:
I don’t think you should be so quick to compare. Sex abuse on a children by EITHER sex is never to be taken lightly. It is an abuse of power of one human being over a minor. And it is a reprehensible abuse. Given a choice however, since you brought up that little boys may be “better off” with Priests than his female teacher, given a choice for your own 16-17yr old son, would you rather have him be the sexual victim of your Priest or a victim of his female teacher?
“…In the state of California, 8 of 9 teachers are female. The number of female teachers who offend has stayed around 4% while male offenders 80-96%…”
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/01/17/teacher_sex/index.html
So in staying IN TOPIC. There are all kinds of way men keep other men (and women)down, this is just one of those ways.
ddc –
Re staying on topic: Look, you’re the one who’s talking about Texas cults and Catholic priests. Do try to pay attention. The judge’s statement that the female teacher would have gone to jail if she was a man is entirely germane to Dr. Helen’s article. Also, it underscores the bias that tilts reporting of molestation statistics to favor women via underreporting and not holding women accountable as men are held accountable.
Your “ew, homos are gross” argument is a logical fallacy of the “two wrongs don’t make a right” nature. Your counter arguments in defense of irresponsible female behavior all seem to be based on the idea that men are always worse, therefore, women aren’t so bad.
The statistic you cite does not specify whether it is comparing female teachers to male teachers or whether it is comparing female teachers to the incidence of molestation in the general population. Given that teachers in general have a lower incidence of criminality than the general population the statistic appears to be a cleverly worded deception that is not comparing the proper samples.
In any case, your source for this statistic is a comically screechy article on the Salon website based on a story that ran on NPR. Those two are as likely to have intelligent, fairly sourced articles about men’s rights as they are to have articles declaring Bush to be the greatest president in history. But thanks for confirming the nature of your tilted world view.
Finally, you seem to be the type of person who “wins” these sorts of internet arguments by being so persistently wooly-brained and disingenous, so tiresome, that people just give up and don’t even bother replying to you. I anxiously await your next insight, ha, ha.
Rape is under-reported by both boys and girls for any number of reasons. For you to suggest that MORE boys are being raped by their female teachers than girls being raped by their male teachers at the same rate, yet somehow are going unreported by the thousands is stretching without the modicum of reality. Therefore we can only rely on the facts as they’re presented and reported. The facts don’t represent whatever the hell you’re attempting to sell. Sorry.
Men keep other men down in many ways. Sex is merely one way. Which is probably the most insidious. I believe Dr. Helen mentioned “SEXUAL HARASSMENT” as part of the way in which men do, in fact, screw themselves over. As it keeps male-negativity or bashing alive and well, I believe she’s right. Disregarding this entire area is not only disengenuous on your part but is also very telling in why these problems for men do exist. That you simply DO NOT GET IT.
By NOT getting it, or REFUSING to get it, or being INDIFFERENT to it, imbeciles like you keep the perception that most men either see such actions as either their God-given “right” or somehow “not their fault.”
Citing the Polygamy cases merely highlights how men keep not only other men “down” through intimidation or BS Religions, but also how men can and do use these tactics on women and children. Means justifying the ends = power over others by the few.
As I did say, sexual abuse of male or female minors at any age is terrible. Having first stated that, men and women sex offenders due to BIOLOGY, as well as HOW they APPROACH their victims present stark differences. But for the innate psychological and biological differences between males and females, young men are much more easily sexually aroused than young women during adolescence. When a young boy is sexually abused by another man he inevitably faces some long-term sexual identity issues. As in “am i gay that my penis got hard while being sexually abused by that man?”
Rape by either male and female does present the initial psychological issue of another having taken “power” from them. This only can have life-long effects. Rape by a male of a male, especially an adolescent presents the entirely NEW set of life-long anxieties for the male victim of sexual identity together with helplessness for having had power taken from them.
Only an idiot would not see the difference between opposite sex rape and same sex rape of an underage male.
Since you enjoy living in your fantasy world heres more fantasy-bias-spin, whatever floats your shorts up. Learn and enjoy.
http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html
Anyway since this topic (as is the case with most of Dr. Helen’s topics) is about men it’d probably be beneficial for men to really get in touch with how this relates to them in their own lives. What they can do, or how they can change their ways of thinking so that they don’t find themselves bashed or treated with bias, in ways the don’t enjoy.
“ddc”
I would ban him.
Does any rational man left on this god forsaken rock, really still believe in freedom of speech and that we’re all just “equal”?
It is absurd.
There are different types born for genetic reasons, just like with dog breeds. If we allow the idiot conspiratorial type to breed it will apparently thrive at our expense.
All the words are irrelevant. They are an exprssion –like bird chirps are– of his underlying biology.
ddc said
“Anyway since this topic (as is the case with most of Dr. Helen’s topics) is about men it’d probably be beneficial for men to really get in touch with how this relates to them in their own lives. What they can do, or how they can change their ways of thinking so that they don’t find themselves bashed or treated with bias, in ways the don’t enjoy.”
I’ll translate since I speak animal idiot…
“Once men come to accept that the dirty, dirty penis penterating the wimmins is a hideous cosmic injustice(unless it’s “mine”), then they can start to understand why they are being unconstitutionally conspired against.”
In other words, so called “feminism” is all mission creep. And one must ask where the end game is in such a belief. (The belief is “a penis penetrating is a cosmic oppression”. This is an instinct to get rid of the adult males. So where does it stop?)
====
Someone just said ddc’s tactic is to fatique with innanity. That is absolutely correct. And worse, the ddc types do it with ease, since it is not really a purposeful tactic –it is simply an expression of the lunacy that modern society breeds for.
How can the sane –and productive– dissect ddc’s posts? They are barrages of blood libel demagoguery (popularly accepted mis-truths).
=======
======
From talking about how feminism is really chivalry –and as such a male against male non self aware bio determinist reproductive strategy at its heart (think rooster vs rooster) — to rape stats, “harrasment” stats and ‘abuse’ of ‘underage’ stats (a thoroughly modern contrivence) ultimately used as salicous propaganda to demonise men.
Ban him.
FP,
Your comments are either pure hilarity or complete rabid paranoia.
I do get that some subjects might be TOO “sensitive” and would therefore be more politically incorrect to adressed. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be addressed. WHo determines what is off limite for discussion or not? You? Hardly.
Hey women screw other women over too but the topic isn’t about women…this time. It’s about why men either might or are getting screwed over by other men Judges, co-workers, employers, to some extent – women, and why some men’s treatment of women i.e. sexual harassment perpetuates the male bashing and bias men feel they suffer today. Aren’t you the least bit interested in WHAT ALL the issues would be to attribute to such? I mean look what you are doing right now.
“Ban him!” Why? Because this perhaps touches a nerve and it takes away from the poor guys getting pummeled? I’ve brought up nothing untrue or salacious, yet you call for me to be banned. Interesting.
Have I ever said this is indicative of ALL MEN? No. There are plenty good, decent, fair, remarkable men who don’t deserve some of the bad treatment they get from the courts, employers, women, other men, etc. What makes it bad for THOSE guys are guys like you. Sorry to say.
Seriously tiresome. Get a clue. Grow up or something. Geezus.
Ban me. The facts and issues will remain the same.
Enough said
Not saying this applies everywhere, but I used to work in a large corporation full of spoiled, rich “daddy’s girls”. These girls never worked a day in their life until they got their corporate job (I mean until their dad got them their corporate job). These jobs are all mid or higher level affirmative action jobs that don’t require much work (think Michelle Obama as “community laiason” for a hospital for $327,000/year). They all have BMWs or Mercedes their dads got them as college graduation gifts. The company loves it because they are making up for the fact that the CEO and all VPs are men. Yet, there is NOT ONE single man in place to move up to any of the top spots now.
These girls basically tell rank and file men, who are doing the real work, what to do. These men toil away to try and support families all the while knowing promotional opportunities are slim since all the slots above them are women. The men are resentful. As each man leaves the office becomes more estrogen-filled. I finally had it and left also.
Unfortunately, even these women will become unhappy because they will never be satisfied marrying a normal man starting out in life because they’re spoiled rotten. They’ll make excuses for their singleness as the fact “their professional success intimidates” men when its nothing of the sort.
Jeez, what a bunch of crybabies. No wonder you all get mistreated.
>Floridan:
>Jeez, what a bunch of crybabies. No wonder you all get mistreated.
——-
Yeah, you’re a real toughguy…
And a hypocrit who just makes nonsense up.
No wonder every few generations there’s civil war to cull you back.
College conditions most men to the anti-male bias as a prerequisite to simply get laid. The conditioning sticks.
Did I just reveal my own misogyny?
Phineas,
1st sentence. Well said.
2nd, eh, you’re only stating the truth.
Of course they are. Men have betrayed their brothers in order to score points with radicalized women and homosexuals.