Saving the Males from the NY Times
To the deluded pseudo-liberal, the malleability of these fish suggests that their dreams of utopia are not so utopian at all. If men willingly become maids then what obstacle prevents the masses from chanting “Arugula Not Guns!”? With New Age man as role model anything is possible.
However, parading these folie à deux is an appeal to conformity, but fallacious contentions are endemic to Big Media nowadays. Progressives use conformity — and any other trick or device they can quote or acquire — as a means to convince the general population that their natural inclinations are maladaptive. Radicals are only too happy to save the enlightened by reconfiguring them in their own image.
The activist disguised as truth collector is deeply disdainful of males out of principle. Intrinsic to their worldview is the notion that demeaning men automatically elevates women. They regard the direct sex as being mentally limited, so hectoring them should be enough to get the primordial male to alter his essence. What leftists fail to comprehend is that no amount of nagging will reconstitute the sexes. Most men do not want to keep house and rock cradles. A century ago our society recognized this state of affairs and shrugged it off with “viva la difference.”
Unfortunately, today the past is denounced and/or forgotten. Sex has become “gender.” Gender is a social construct so we’re thought to be “open source” and receptive to permutation — except for the fact that we are not and will never be. Sex is a biological construct and no amount of pandering or theorizing can cure us of our innate proclivities. In the words of Horace: “You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she will always hurry back.” Amen.
A survey cited indicates that despite four decades of feminist imploration women still perform twice as much house work as do men. The discrepancy becomes even wider in terms of childcare. Progressives would attribute this to male sloth and inherent dysfunctionality; however, a more plausible explanation is that men have different standards for cleanliness and do not see the end results of domestic activities as being worth the effort that goes into them. Assuredly, this columnist was not the only male who chose Euro 2008 over waxing the floors last weekend.
Moreover, while female advancement is a sacred venture for institutions like the New York Times, it is not for the whole of men. Shared care might well make marriage easier for wives and offer a chance to “have it all,” yet its impact on husbands is punitive. With the marriage rate recently having fallen below 50 percent in America due to fewer and fewer men consenting to tie the knot, the timing of this expose was both ironic and misguided. That an outlet — which boasts of publishing “all the news that’s fit to print” — is so oblivious of current events evidences the way that bias has corrupted their mission.
Like the late film critic Pauline Kael, the Crate and Barrel elitists who run the New York Times dwell in a “special world” and carefully avoid interactions with the general population. Recall Kael’s remarks concerning the reelection of Richard Nixon: “I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” Sadly, we can feel her kind too, particularly when they are attempting to alter the course of our lives.
Further, it is not clear that shared care will ultimately please the majority of women. Two of these Potemkin husbands opted for underemployment and part-time status so they could fulfill their domestic aspirations. One turned down a promotion because you “can’t work part time as a manager.” Fair enough, but how probable is it that rank-and-file women will be attracted to men so devoid of vocational ambition?
That fellow’s wife tolerates him but she appears to be every bit as non-representative as he is. On their first date they split the check and she gushed that “this guy was too good to be true.” My guess is that her peers would have a different impression of the graying Prince Donahue. The Times may admire such men but unmarried females would dismiss them as being directionless basket cases. A woman needs a shirker as much as a man needs Oprah. Every straight male over the age of 25 realizes that making public a disinterest in work drives off the opposite sex in the manner of Raid being shaken before a kitchen full of cockroaches.
One need not be a psychologist or an economist to fathom that if you punish behaviors you get less of them. The already excessive demands and expectations of the modern woman are being heightened by the New York Times, which will only serve to further convince males that marriage is not worth the risk.
Further evidence of Lisa Belkin’s cluelessness, is the fact that when you look at a man working in a big city, white collar, married with kids, making a good amount of money, what she would find is that the wife would normally want to work less, so as to be with the kids more. This permits the wife to do more at home b/c she spends more time at home. Among city, white-collar workers with families, this is more common than the “egalitarian” model Belkin writes about.
I expect adults to be able to care of themselves. I was raised and then lived single doing the food shopping, cooking, dishes, laundry, etc. I thought that is what adults do.
Married now and my wife works corporate and is usually home later than me. I make dinner. My son does lots of chores while home on summer vacation. It is team work. When there are the home repairs to do, I do them, but there is no ‘slack’ I have to pick up later. Normal ‘man’ work around the house counts as chores too.
Every couple does have to work it out.
These folks are trying to neuter women too. Women are only valued when doing things men can do. But I would never have missed the female-only experience of breastfeeding my babies with the rush of hormones that accompanied it. The babies’ dad could watch in amazement and appreciation but he couldn’t experience it.
It does women no favor to ask them not to explore and enjoy the nature of their uniqueness from men.
These freaking left tards are trying to make wimps out of all males so that there will be no one left to stand up to communisum. It is an attempt to destroy America from the inside out. Praise homos, social scum and spit in the face of eveything that turned this into the greatest nation the earth has ever known in less than 250 years. F that.
“They’re choreographed vignettes aimed at redefining sex and gender.”
I came from an “egalitarian” marriage in which I stayed home and took care of the kids when they were young–and guess what? I enjoyed it greatly, but it helped produce a divorce. Women today cannot get certain contradictions clear, and they don’t bother. They are for “equality” because their dominating “feminist” girlfriends say they should be, but in a while their guts tell them they want a partnership with a strong, perhaps dominating high-earning male. They can never get their priorities firm and straight. They vacillate from one to the other.
Woe to the man who believes that women’s statements of “desire for equality” are something solid and reliable.
Men and women are different. I don’t know why feminists think that men are better than women. Get on with developing the feminine and stop telling women that their sex is second class to men.
No wonder the NYT’s readership and advetising dollars are shrinking as is the number of employees. These folks live in a bubble. I’m 52, divorced, and a successful professional and most women I know have dispensed with this gender equality stuff and are happy to have a relationship that recognizes the differences between men and women. The NYT has yet to catch up and has yet to realize that the feminie agenda is working against most women. Most men I know not only will not buy into this crap but have become wary of women who might seek such phony equality. Furthermore, men are wary because, in many cases, the courts have screwed them in times of divorce with respect to kids and money. So many of us have receded into our man=caves looking out warily with a skeptical eye. Which is not good because there are plenty of good women out there but because we are such simple beings we have a hard time discerning possible mates from the ball cutters. Its confusing so we resist any commitments lest we make another wrong choice.
Free people are not equal, equal people are not free…… Sounds like they want is robots for families.
Women need to be cherished; men, adored. This can, in fact, be accomplished so that both parties bear respect for each other. I consider myself equal in every way to men, but that doesn’t mean I’m the same as them — and I don’t expect them to be the same as me. All I ask is that they respect me as a person — and frankly, I’ve never really met a man who didn’t. If a person is secure in their self-worth, they’ll will find that self-worth respected — and they’ll be able to shrug off the few idiots who don’t get it. This goes for either gender.
Johanna – Bravo -
I have no doubt that male and female partners can be equal…but that doesn’t mean we’re the same. And really, why would we want to be?
The only guys (or girls) who are worth spending time around are the ones who understand gender differences are: 1) a reality and 2)a good thing.
I want to be the girl in my relationships. Moreover, I don’t want to waste my time on an unambitious wimp who lets me walk all over him and has no sense of masculinity. And frankly, if my guy wants to mow the lawn and do other guys jobs while I do the dishes and vacuum…big deal.
The NYT needs to grab a clue and realize it is doing more to hobble women by telling them that there is something wrong with them being female and men being male.
Nobody gives a #&*@ about the NYTimes anymore.
Feminists are laughable creatures. They are probably the most confused bunch of people around. I have honestly never met a feminist who is remotely interested in a man who earns less than she does and yet they dream of women working in all the best paid jobs with men as their underlings. Go figure.
No wonder the majority of these harpies end up unhappy, bitter and alone. Its all ahead of you Ms Belkin, enjoy!!
Ms. Belkin’s ‘equal’ theory sounds grand on paper but hardly practical when put into practice. (Try saying that three times real fast.)
How do you define ‘equalness’ in a household? And how do you ‘enforce’ the ‘equal share’ of contribution? Usually it resulted in very ineffective practice of fulfilling the chores.
To a rule, people obsessed with ‘equalness’ make them into the most un-inspired and un-interesting persons that I would avoid at all cost.
I’m one of those guys. But if the NYT likes me, I’m shipping the kid to daycare.
Not really. He’s just over two, very mild mannered, knows all the basic colors, numbers, and entire alphabet with no mistakes since before turning two. I’m the best ‘mom’ you know.
Now let’s see you do fifty (real) push ups, harpy. That type of obsessive minute-by-minute analysis of who does what is the surest way I can imagine to wreck a relationship. Which explains a lot.
Journalism and Academia will become the last resorts of the feminasties and their comrades. Academia feeds manufactured “true believers” into journalism and journalism covers for the decline of academia. Partners in dumbing down society.
“and frankly, I’ve never really met a man who didn’t…” and no wonder Joanna, with an attitude like this: “Women need to be cherished; men, adored.”
I absolutely love that particular formulation; it really catches a subtle difference and leaves both side on an even footing. Great!
The worst of it is that allthe effort Belkin’s crowd exerts produces nothing but confusion and depression. They’ve made it easy for men and women to give up on each other, to not trust each other and to listen for clues for oppresion and victimization, especially when none exist.
People need to realize the basis for Belkin’s intellectual sludge. Its dialectical materialism with Stalinist overtones. Its infantile class warfare, an ideology that fosters unhappiness and resentment.
All feminism has done is make normal, well-adjusted people wary, unhappy and aloof. It has proved nothing beyond showing that lots of people are easily led and are short on critical thinking brought on by a failure to observe fact, reason, logic and history.
Wait I am all confused… 1st) I thought Sex and City and chasing alpha males was feminism. The Sex and city model of feminism is totally different than sharing all tasks equally. 2nd) The economic 101 training I had taught me that specialization and trade was more efficient overall and would result in a greater pie to split. Example, it ends up that my wife is a great painter. She paints all the rooms in our house. I can do it.. it just takes longer and I dont do as good a job. Now if she paints while I mow the lawn or fix the car.. We are both better off as a couple and can get our do lists over quicker. Trading off each others strengths is a way superior model than splitting everything equally.
3rd) Men dont get child custody 50% of the time. Now that is real gender discrimination. Shouldn’t men be able to divorce and still get the kids?
“Trading off each others strengths is a way superior model than splitting everything equally.”
I totally agree, except that it doesn’t follow that the woman needs to do all the stereotypically feminine stuff while the man does the manly stuff. I’m pretty feminine myself, no problem ‘following the script’ personally. Yet I know some women don’t like doing dishes or vaccuuming, and could tell you more about cars than F1 racing mechanics. I bet they could do car repairs no? Tasks should be based on who likes or is able to do a task better than the other, and not put too much of a burden on one party (so that this party cannot accomplish their tasks reasonably).
Personally I can cook, do dishes, clean up, and basically do the housework. It doesn’t follow that being female, wether feminine or not, makes you inherently better at one task than another though – or more interested in doing it. Mowing the lawn is physically straining, and usually under hot weather, but well, I’m sure some women might appreciate it, and some men do not. Why would they need to keep up with “Man mows the lawn and she watches” if it just doesn’t work for them? If it works for them, fine, if it doesn’t, find another arrangement – don’t stubbornly stick to it saying “It’s natural for him to mow the lawn.” If neither likes it, but both can physically do it reasonably well, hire a contractor, or alternate maybe? Discussion is always a good thing there. It’s not between society and what roles constitute, but between a couple and their likes, dislikes, needs, etc.
There’s nothing in nature making someone more likely to LIKE mowing the lawn.
It doesn’t need to become a model for all men or all women to do x or y task though. I know nothing about cars, try to explain to me how to repair one and I’d likely lose you somewhere. So my (no doubt male) partner, if they have any car knowledge at all, is probably more suited to the task – just saying, it’s not because I’m female that this happens though.
The only thing that really matters is to adapt to individuality. Not one model is good for 100% of people, wether normative or alternative. Develop your own model that works for you as a couple.
Ms. Belkin seems to be part of that feminazi movement that has done nothing but emasculate men. Men and women are inherently different. That is what makes it all so much fun albeit a tad aggravating at times…but hey, never boring. Instead of beating men up for not being women, Ms. Belkin should put more time into actually understanding how a man really works.
The already excessive demands and expectations of the modern woman (and man if you ask me), are being heightened by the New York Times, which will only serve to further convince males that marriage is not worth the risk.
In fact, screeds like the NYT pushing their agenda has many males not asking not is marriage worth the risk, but, is marriage worth the bother?
There are already many women out there looking for disconnected sex, so why “buy the cow?”
(I know, I know, that will cause many angry responses. I did not make the saying up, I just repeated it, OK?!)
I once gave a book called “Why men are the way they are” to my wife, with whom I was having trouble. Instead of reading it, she gave me a book called “Women who love too much.” She was in that book, all right but it didn’t help. I read both and I doubt she read either. The sexes sometimes seem to be talking past each other. We divorced and I have not married again although I am in a long term relationship. Mark Twain once said that a cat that had sat on a hot stove would not sit on another one, but it wouldn’t sit on a cold stove either.
In my late marriage, I, the man, usually did the cooking, especially when we had guests. I also did the shopping, almost always by myself. The reasons were simple: I was more amenable with cooking (most chefs are men, to this day), and had more energy later in the day (my wife was more of a morning person than I was). I did the shopping because she would be busy with around-the-house stuff at which she was better. Except for moving furniture — a youth spent doing heavy labor jobs and weightlifting made me very suitable for those tasks. We never thought of ourselves as “enlightened” or exemplary. We simply divided things up by what made the most sense based on our abilities and proclivities.
I don’t quite understand the problem. What is so wrong with a husband sharing responsibilities (domestically) for a child or children he is 50% responsible for creating while his wife is also at work to help pay for their lifestyle?
Not only do I not understand the problem I don’t understand why it is being MADE to BE an either this way or that way issue or that a man would be less of a man for helping out. I’d much more respect a man for helping out with children than refusing to based on the “it’s not my job I’m a man” kind of sentiment.
If you want to compare it to “nature” or the natural way of things, there are many species of animals in which male and female alike share in the nurturing and daily routine of the brood so one cannot say that this “sharing” of domestic duties is not found in nature therefore totally “unnatural.”
Furthermore, when a single working man lives alone, does he not cook, clean, wash his own clothes and do many of the duties a single working woman must also do? As a single dad wouldn’t he also have to do the same?
How is it therefore “demasculating” to a man to do the same, while married with children if his wife is also working and doing her share? Sorry but I don’t get it.
Roderick Reilly,
Thanks for making some sense here. That’s exactly what a relationship should be. And btw, men ARE better cooks. Every guy that has ever prepared a dinner for me has always been better than me. And it really is neither a “manthing” or a “womanthing” as really any other domestic thing is.
There are far too many men who think that because they vacuum a floor it’s demeaning to them. I wonder if they realize that what they find “demeaning” to a man is precisely what women do which also feeds into the whole idea of “men are better than women” attitude which fueled, in part, the entire feminist movement that they now despise.
sigh.
“I don’t quite understand the problem. What is so wrong with a husband sharing responsibilities (domestically) for a child or children he is 50% responsible for creating while his wife is also at work to help pay for their lifestyle? ”
They are both 50% responsible, both for the housework and for the income. so if she is in fact making only $0.70 to his %1.00, she needs to pick up that slack ta home to make things even.
“……….and doing her share? ”
……….as I was saying – equal, equal.
I can’t think of one job in a house that is emasuclating. I can see how bringing home most of the income and then being harangued to do half the housewiork is infuriating. It is especially infuriating if a lot of household tasks such as car maintenance, cleaning the gutters and yardwork are somehow not counted as tiem spent doing housework. Time commuting also somehow magically falls out of a lot of these studies too. That could be a litle irritating.
Successful marriage is based on love not ideology or social experiment. No guy wants his wife to be run in the ground, but you can’t put a job description on who does what when. Couples take care of one another. When the kids are small, to have dad spent two hours out on a walk or at the playground is a joy for the kids. Does that mean he’s copping out on some physical work in the house. No. The demands change all the way up the line and everyone chips in with what they are comfortable with for the benefit of all. Some guys are slobs, some wives are slobs, and everyone has to make their bed and live in it.
I’d like to see a comparison between Liberal and Conservative married couples and know which group has a lower divorce rate. I’m sure Conservative households have more children on average, are happier on average, and have more traditional husband and wife roles.
My wife sometimes complains when I don’t jump and help clean up but then I offer to let her wash the cars, cut the grass, build the deck and anything else requiring sweat and muscles. She backs off.
Jim
commuting time? Ahaha! Awww poor you.
“I can see how bringing home most of the income and then being harangued to do half the housewiork is infuriating.”
So by THIS rule of law, or standard according to misogonist Jim, if the wife is bringing home most of the income, (which in many instances does happen to be the case, she should then be exempt from half the housework? Cool. I can handle that.
As a soldier, I have had some very unique experiences with the idea of “equal marriage”. My wife is very liberal and she used to harass me about hose work and changing diapers all the time. However when I came from from working in the motor pool so hot that my uniform was soggy and I had a temp of 100 deg (drink water! beat the heat!) she backed off.
I have no problem with her doing the money, but we have to split chores and duties. SHE is the mom, I’m the DAD and unless I’m deployed (not yet but I keep trying to volunteer) it stays that way. Military spouses have to me both mom and dad when the other spouse is deployed. I have seen couples argue, divorce or cheat each other when they swallow that PC
“total football” approach. Either they fight all the time or the spouse become too independent. SOme even divorce their spouse while they are deployed (one wife stole her husbands enlistment bonus).
I like having a wife helps me concentrate on defending democracy. I know that she’s leared her lesson and can pick up the slack when I get that 3:00am recall.
Here’s a simple measure: If one partner is sitting on their butt while the other is busting theirs, then you got a problem. If my stay-at-home wife tells me I work harder than she does and I think she’s working too much then it’s likely that our situation is fair regardless of who does what particular job.
If you consider a chore demeaning, then you’ve probably got way too big an ego and that’s more likely the cause of your problems. If you take responsibility and act like a grown up, a lot of these ‘issues’ just go away.
This article is just one lame cliche after another. “The New York Times and the ‘Mainstream Media’ are liberal propaganda.” “Feminists are angry women who are trying to feminize men.” blah blah..
I read the Times article. And it’s nothing but a story about a married couple trying there best to live how they choose. If anything it shows that the idea of “equal parenting” is barely workable.
Bernard probably just saw that headline and thought he could get away with writing an easy hit piece on easy target. The “Times is Liberal” card has been so overplayed that it’s just silly, and the view that feminists are trying to feminize men can only be held by someone who doesn’t know any self-identified feminists. Most feminists I know more or less share gnubi’s common sense approach.
As for Eric’s comment, if red states and blue states are any indication of liberalism and conservativism, divorce rates are higher in red states. Of course the easy response is to follow Bernard’s example and reject the stats out of hand because they are found in the Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html
Brian: So the Times’ liberal card is being overplayed? How can you overplay the nihilistic liberalism of a rag who put the vicious sociopath Eminem on its front page, and called him a genius. There’s a group of folks you might be interested in joining Brian, Its called the Flat Earth Society.
Well stated, but the existence of these two people, Marc and Amy, is a rebuttal to your argument in and of itself. Not only are many of your quotes taken out of context, but who are you to read either of their minds, much less, predict their biological impulses? Belkin makes it obvious that these individuals have clear preferences that, as you say, no amount of nagging or punditry can erase.
Sex can help shape your personality without sealing your fate. It’s important to be aware of your versatility and potential, whatever the circumstances, rather than force yourself to fit in neatly with your liberal or conservative peers.
I think the point here is that men and women, on average, are different and that dividing up the income and domestic work load should be determined by the preferences of the couple, and not by some ‘standard’ that the NYT heralds as the ‘ideal state’.
The article also suggests that many women like a man who takes charge, is ambitious and earns a good income and if he spends a little more time at work then his wife and a little less time doing housework, and the wife is happy with that, then she shouldn’t be made to feel like a retrogressive fool. This does not imply that the man sits around in the evening watching TV while his wife cleans the house after an exhausting day of taking care of 4 kids. I reiterate that income and domestic work load should be determined by the preferences of the couple.
Does anyone disagree with this?
We should stop thinking about proper sex roles and just think about what would be best for families. Here’s my approach: a couple should start with the question of whether they can make ends meet with one parent at home, because generally kids are better off with at least one parent at home. Then, the couple needs to ask, coldly and rationally, which parent is able to bring in more money, better benefits, etc. Sometimes that’s going to be the wife. And when it is the wife, she should be the bread-winner, and the husband should stay home. We guys seriously need to suck it up and do what’s best for the family, and sometimes that means being the one that stays at home.
Typical right wing macho BS reactions: they are neutering us, the barbarians are going to take over unless we go back to the good old ways, leftard elitists, etc etc…… You people are so kneejerk and predictable, you provide me with the best laughs online. Keep it up!
How do you calculate how distasteful a chore is and how much time it should take? If one partner is slower than do you go by hours worked or by the task? My wife needs about an hour more sleep a night than I do. Does my extra hour count as free time or does it count towards the time I should be doing chores. My wife has 3 times as many clothes as I do. Is that fair?
While the scorekeepers are busy determining what we “should do,” I’m trying to make my wife happy and she is trying to make me happy.
I remember when I was taking driver education, my instructor emphasized defensive driving. Otherwise you will be “dead right.” You will have driven perfectly and still be dead.
If you follow the “rules” rather than creatively making your partner happy, you end up divorced.
look for much much more of this, as from all accounts b. obama has been crowned the new new man by the media. to a certain segment of media, m. obama looks good in pants and she she seems to like to let us all know who has them on in her family. we will hear much from that point of view, to be sure. nyt’s obvious love for all things obama and addiction to societal “makeovers” that denigrate good ole masculinity will create perfect storm for many more… new family… pieces.
Great rejoinder Javilin. No one cares if you think rightwingers are nuts, they probably think you’re naive. If you have something interesting to say about the article, or a specific comment, especially if it stems from experience, we’d love to hear it.
Deguello:What an ironic name,for a typically flaccid,liberal wimp! JAVELIN! he could no more hold one in his little limp wrist, than Pinch Sulzberger. .Javelin and his ilk are grateful that NYT and other organs of unnatural living provide him with cover for his pathetic inability to act like a real man.Which leads me to Brian’s comment that there are more divorces in red states than in blue ones.Sure, the men in red states haven’t been morally castrated into putting up with gender feminism manifesting itself after marriage.Also, Brian neglected to say that fertility rates are far higher in red`states, than in blue ones.Apparently macho javelins work far better than those of the blue liberal variety.,and red state women like it that way!
TO: All
RE: Heh
How many of you have read Niven and Pournelle’s classic, Lucifer’s Hammer?
This carefully crafted edifice will collapse like a house of cards when brushed by a kitten; in the proper circumstances. As described in that novel.
As it is stated there, “Feminism died a millisecond after the first impact.”
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Be Prepared. -- Boy Scout credo]
JAVELIN! Now there’s an ironic name for a feminazied man whose limp little wrist could barely hold one, let alone launch it! Javelin and other progressive men are pathetically grateful for the ideological cover that the Times and other “liberal” organs of unnatural thought provide for their flaccid little personalities.Relieved of the intolerable burden of masculinity,they are then free to self-righteously condemn normal males.Their flaccidity is more than just moral.Brian neglecte to tell us when he spoke of red states having greater divorce rates than blue ones,that fertility rates are far higher in red states, than they are in blue ones;apparently,masculine javelins work better than progressive ones,and the women seem to like it just fine!
TO: Javelin
RE: Yeah….Right….
“Typical right wing macho BS reactions…” — Javelin
Well You’re welcome to your opinion, so much BS that it may be. It’s all projection on your part. Not on ours.
“….they are neutering us….” — Javelin
Actually, they’d have a REAL hard time trying to do that. There’d be more ‘blood’ from them than from me. And my spouse would be doing a LOT of the ‘blood-letting’. She’d take extreme umbrage at the idea of spoiling HER fun.
“….the barbarians are going to take over unless we go back to the good old ways….” — Javelin
You OBVIOUSLY are no student of history. When and from where did you graduate high school? Or have you not had World History yet. That’s junior-level high school, isn’t it?
“….leftard elitists, etc etc……” — Javelin
I’ll base my elitism on reality. As for what you base yours on, that’s apparently nothing to do with such a concept.
“You people are so kneejerk and predictable, you provide me with the best laughs online.” — Javelin
I think you’re projecting here too, buckie.
As for the laughs. Fine by me. I can laugh at myself better that I suspect YOU can at yourself. Your defensive response here is proof enough of that.
“Keep it up!” — Javelin
I suspect I keep it ‘up’ better than you do. And I deliver it better, too. Please pardon my immodest ‘machismo’. But reality IS ‘reality’. And despite the wishes of the NYT and other meterosexuals, when the tread meets the pavement, image doesn’t count for squat.
Hope that helps…but…well…I have serious doubts…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. -- C. S. Lewis]
P.S. Have a wonderful Independence Day celebration. And with each explosion, remember all the non-meterosexuals who made it possible for you to speak your [BS] piece amongst US.
P.P.S. I don’t need to be ‘saved’. I AM ‘saved’. Rather, it’s the stupid people like Javelin that need to be saved. The pity is that they won’t realize it until it’s too bloody late….
TO: Chockblock
RE: Well….
“Some even divorce their spouse while they are deployed (one wife stole her husbands enlistment bonus).
I like having a wife helps me concentrate on defending democracy. I know that she’s leared her lesson and can pick up the slack when I get that 3:00am recall.” — Chockblock
…it seems like things haven’t changed much from my time in service; 1970-1997.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ring....Ring....Ring...."Uuhhh...Hello?" "Your pressence is required." "Okay." Click. "Sorry honey. Uncle Sam needs me NOW....."]
“Brian’s comment that there are more divorces in red states than in blue ones.Sure, the men in red states haven’t been morally castrated into putting up with gender feminism manifesting itself after marriage.”
Interesting fact: 70% of divorce proceedings are initiated by women.
Sorry, trying to justify it with “Real men know when to get away.” won’t hold the waters.
I live in a lily-white upper-middle-class suburb.
I have NEVER in 20 years seen a woman pushing a lawnmower, or lugging a ladder needed to clean the gutters, or painting a porch, or humping a heavy air conditioner into a window w/o dropping it onto the pavement, or pruning 60 feet of hedges with a 6 pound electric trimmer, etc. etc.
And no, we don’t all have a bunch of Yard Aztecs or $75/hour “handymen” to come by to do these things.
Yet one seldom reads articles where such chores are considered “housework”. And for good reason: they take endurance and strength, plus a willingness at times not just to get really sweaty and dirty, but even to break a nail.
Nope. That’s male work. Always has been always will be.
So it will be either ignored or devalued by the harpies who want nothing more from their metrosexual “men” than to submit to facials with cucumber slices placed over their eyes.
Ick.
Whatever happened to the times when men were men and women were women? Boys are treated like girls from the start,and very few turn out to be men.What do you expect?
TO: Anna Keppa
RE: All They Want
“So it will be either ignored or devalued by the harpies who want nothing more from their metrosexual “men” than to submit to facials with cucumber slices placed over their eyes.” — Anna Keppa
And they [the harpies] are welcome to them. Lotta good it will do them in the long run. These are males that will not be able to protect them—and what few children they have—when the time comes. And, one way or another, hard times ALWAYS come to civilizations. Even if it means bad things falling out of the sky.
There is profound evidence that between the Early Bronze Age and today, civilization has collapsed five times. Most likely due to some cometary or asteroidal impact making for a global winter that lasted for years. The first being equated/identified with the Biblical Great Flood. The latest being an event that brought on the Dark Ages.
If we look at the frequency, the mean is roughly 720 years. And although such things don’t happen like buses on a schedule, they do happen. And we’re about twice beyond the mean for another such event.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur]
I say bring it on.The world,especially the west, has been choking in ideological insanities:gender feminism, cultural diversity, relativism,political correctness,globalism,’free” trade gun control etc. It’s time to flush the toilet, and return to basics.It wont be pretty, it will be violent;it’ll make the dark ages look like a garden part;but those of us who are prepared,it’ll be wonderful beyond belief. Long live reality!Let’s bring it back1
“Woe to the man who believes that women’s statements of “desire for equality” are something solid and reliable.” Yes, woe to that man, and woman for that matter. The corrupt divorce courts, feminist runned schools, mainstream media and so on shows quite the contrary.
N.Y times is a pit. May it die for good. So should the rest of them twisted, brainwashing of same ilk.
Of course men and women are different. One is masculine,the other is feminine. That is how a perfect God designed it. Together they are complete. Husband/Wife, Father/Mother. Those two halves create a strong unity bond inspite what those slimy snake feminists say. They are evil, twisted, and destructive. They are the main reason marriages/families are being destroyed along with the lives of children. Soon it will be America. God will surely punish such severely, that is a guarantee.
I am a man and will always be a man. It is who i am. To a precious genuine feminine woman i will be her husband and she my wife. It is my responsibility to love her, to nurture her, provide for her and to protect her. If the roof is leaking i better get up-there and fix the problem. If the floor needs sweeping, my loving wife will sweep it clean. She will encourage me, support me, care for me and respect me. It’s just the way things were ment to be. By an all powerful God with extraordinary wisdom. Not by the perception of stupid fools such as feminism, mainstream media,our leaders,judges,schools,lawyers etc. This pile of manure needs flushing. It stinks! If a woman has a problem with this, get the hell out of the way. Find some panzy to protect you because soon you will need it. I will only shed my blood for a good genuine woman and innocent children. Western civilization has become the laughting stock of humanity. It is due for destruction!
You are correct Pelto. A catastrophy is soon to come. Since you mentioned the Biblical “great flood,” your wisdom of choice came from the most reliable source. This source also explains the next/last catastrophy to hit mankind. The book of Revelation/Tribulation period. A one world government/New World Order under the leadership of Antichrist. It is in the works. Antichrist hasn’t been revealed as of yet, but he is alive and well impatiently waiting for his curtain call. The great Satan will possess him soon. The only sign in the book of Revelation to point out the beginning of Tribulation period is when a seven year peace pact between the nation Israel and the Paslestine people is agreed upon with a signature. Is not George Bush and Rice pushing for such an agreement? Bush believes it can be done within his term of office. Only time will tell. The last 3 and half years of this period will be like no other. 1/3rd. of people will die by the sword of Antichrist’s army. 1/3rd. will die of famines, poisoned waters/nuclear radiation, plagues, diseases etc. These are very unpleasant interesting times upon us. The myth these things only happen to civilizations of other generations is only a “myth.”
Deguello, i will have to agree with you. These are things that must come to pass even at our expense. A stormy cleansing is what’s needed to destroy this Luciferian culture. It is out of control. Christ needs to come as promised to take back his creation. To destroy the sickness of our societies and rule with an iron scepter. That is what he said will do. So it be done accordingly.
For those that are interested, here you will find the change of our culture was cleverly modified by design by the elite secret societies. http://www.henrymakow.com & http://www.endtime.com
Keep an open mind about such things folks. For those in “neverland’ who choose to live the fantasy, to not believe, well join the club of disbelief of people in the “Noah’s Ark Flood” & “Sodom & Gammorah” rain of fire. What one does not believe does not change things. It is the actual act that ultimately wins.
TO: Augustus
RE: Eeehhhh….
“You are correct Pelto.” — Augustus
Don’t get me started. It’ll scare 90% of the others here.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Dates in prophecy are closer then they appear in your Bible.]
P.S. Besides….
…it’s off-topic.
Whoa guys! No need to get mystical here. Historical processes don’t need God(if he exits) to develop and come to fruition,Human stupidity, and the need to believe in political fantasies,that violate nature is more than enough to bring about civilizational collapse.
TO: deguello
RE: True….
“No need to get mystical here. Historical processes don’t need God(if he exits) to develop and come to fruition,Human stupidity, and the need to believe in political fantasies,that violate nature is more than enough to bring about civilizational collapse.” — deguello
I’ve seen it often enough in my studies of history. But, as I warned Augustus….
….don’t get me started on this. At least not HERE. It’s too off-topic.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Atheism is a non-prophet organization.]
Chuck: great post,would love to have that discussion sometime.Long live Nietzsche, Thucydides,and evolutionary psychology! “Socialism is a modern idea;and like all modern ideas,it is a false” Nietzsche
TO: deguello
RE: Ooopsie!
“Long live Nietzsche” — deguello
Maybe you should click on the link to my own blog, such as it is, and we can discuss you misunderstanding.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God is dead. -- Nietzsche, c. 1895
Neitzsche is dead. -- God, today]
“God never existed ” Reality
TO: deguello
RE: Yeah?
““God never existed ” Reality” — deguello
I look forward to the day you will tell that to His face.
I’ll be there in the audience. Maybe I’ll even be a witness for the prosecution.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Just because people don't accept an idea, doesn't mean it isn't true.]
P.S. After-thoughts….
If, as you claim, ‘God never existed’, why is it that Nietzsche said, “God is dead.” Something has to live in order to have ‘died’. So, accordingly Nietzsche must have thought God existed.
Or was something lost in ‘translation’?
“Just because people don’t accept an idea, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.”
But the reverse is true. Just because people believe that God is some physical being, is sexed, and is male (and has a long white beard and wears a toga…), doesn’t mean that God is any of these things, at all. God might be the sentient consciousness of all souls, and as such, not a single being, but more than we can count, all into one.
I don’t believe in the God as presented by the Bible. I believe in some superior power, maybe a level high enough for us to consider it godly. Much like someone with warp technology going to a medieval era world would be seen as rather godly, especially with futuristic weapons, like phasers and beam weapons that medieval technology couldn’t even begin to rival (what with having guns that take 2 minutes to reload and cavalry/archers as your main weaponry).
Someone beyond our understanding is considered a god. Even if slightly, or very far from our understanding them. When we didn’t know how to produce fire, or how lightning came to be, harnessing it as electricity, it seemed to us that it was the gods. When a storm came, it was the gods. When an earthquake happened, etc.
Chuck: If I ever do meet god,I’ll ask him to explain to me what the purpose of the suffering and deaths of millions of innocent children in the untold holocausts that constitute human history, served. Maybe he can make me understand why.As to your other point, well spotted! However, Nietzsche was talking about the illusion of god, not of an actual god.For artistic purposes;(it’s more dramatic),he wrote God is dead”. To take your point and extend it logically, What kind of God would let himself die?( We`are not talking about Jesus).We are born, we suffer,we ocassionally enjoy life, most of the time we get crapped on, by the powerful,many of us die in pointless coflicts,some of us the “lucky ones” will die as a festering hunk of dysfunctional meat, barely conscious,let alone coherent,drooling,pissing ourselves,a miserable parody of childhood,as meaningful as a drying turd,we die, we lose consciousness; that is all:lights out,sleep. Fore ver,Punto.
TO: deguello
RE: A Good Read
“If I ever do meet god,I’ll ask him to explain to me what the purpose of the suffering and deaths of millions of innocent children in the untold holocausts that constitute human history….” — deguello
Why Bad Things Happen to Good People.
Might help ya to grasp things. But then again, maybe you should read the original reference material too. You might learn something about the concept of ‘a fallen world’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There is nothing to which most men will not stoop in order to avoid having to actually think.]
P.S. And believe you me….
…you WILL meet Him.
I fully understand the concept of a fallen world;a pathetic attempt to justify the death of innocents. Like all such casuistry, it’s unconvincing. That’s why the Christian church tried to suppressd Greek literature, especially tragedy, which is about trying to find meaning in suffering, without phantasmagoric notions of guilt,the fall,or more such nonsensicsl ways I to induce guilt,and prevent thought.Consider: what will you do in those last seconds of consciousness before death,and realize that you will NOT meet god.By the way,I do not mean to be insulting;I actually respect people who try to live their faith.
TO: deguello
RE: Ain’t Pride Something Awful?
“I fully understand the concept of a fallen world;a pathetic attempt to justify the death of innocents.” — deguello
Actually, I have serious doubts that you understand much of anythink in this particular venue. But that is WAY off-topic for this thread.
Have you read that reference book? Have you read the more recent book I suggested? If not then you’re just another typically ignorant individual railing against that which you have absolutely NO understanding.
I encounter that sort ALL the time. All they have to offer is ignorance and bombast. And the more you point it out to them, the angrier they seem to become.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is when you don't know something. Stupidity is ignorance with pride.]
P.S. You want to continue the ‘off-topic’ discussion, click on my name….
TO: deguello
RE: Off-Topic Discussion
There’s something up there as a reply to your last missive here. See….
http://www.comensarations.info/index.php/weblog/saving_the_males/
Here, let’s try to focus our energies on PJM’s topic. Okay?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -- Mark Twain]
Nice try Chuckie, but characterizing intellectual integrity as pride,is cheap religious casuistry. By the way, that was a nice touch, using a brilliant atheist like Twain to buttress religion:but then you lack intellectual integrity,er, “pride”. Your condescending smugness,is really no different from that of the Times’ editors:same crap,different religion. Have a nice life Chuckie!
TO: deguello
RE: A Monty Python Moment?
Having trouble reading English? Vis-a-vis keeping on-topic and taking the off-topic elsewhere?
Or are you rather gutless in your ‘faith’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Run awaaaaayyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!]
I had thought of continuing the argument on your mensa site in colorado,but why embarrass you in front of your friends?
TO: deguello
RE: Projection, Again?
“I had thought of continuing the argument on your mensa site in colorado,but why embarrass you in front of your friends?” — deguello
My friends AND my associates know me already. The only ones being embarrassed are the gutless wonders, compadre.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. -- George Bernard Shaw]
Any way let me put my take on Marriage and Chores
a)Who are the ones that push the relationship towards marriage? — female
b)Who are more likely to have desire to live in a clean and cute home? — female
c)Who are more likely to have the nesting instinct, which we see in all mammals? — Females
d)Who are more likely to have a desire for kids?—Females
And have the females, inspite of their empowerment, stopped using supply of sex as a bargaining tool?
And have they stopped emotional manipulation?
All the evidence points to one obvious conclusion. Marriage was largely designed to address female insecurities and child rearing. Men gain just companionship from marriage, nothing more.THey are promised of regular sex, but that dies once the female has an offspring.
And regarding housework:
Women desire clean house, tasty food and cute kids more than men. And women force men to pick up chores to meet their own innate desires, under the phony name of “equality”.
Anyway marriage involves HUGE sacrifice of masculinity. And under absence of social pressure, majority of males would turn away from this institution.
And that is what we are noticing in a phenomenon called “Marriage Strike”.