tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post1169604549376395329..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Bill Bennett: one rule for women another for men?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-33485262714766380972011-11-23T11:32:58.642+11:002011-11-23T11:32:58.642+11:0099.9% isn't enough!99.9% isn't enough!Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66847795906674851922011-11-23T09:33:23.232+11:002011-11-23T09:33:23.232+11:00What I don’t understand is that there was a commen...<i>What I don’t understand is that there was a comment just there about “slut shaming”, yet if you criticise a gamer or whatever they’re likely to say “Oh that’s just shaming language” and then totally dismiss the argument.</i> <br /> <br /><br />I've noticed that also. They very explicitly want to shame everybody they disagree with, but if anybody disagrees with them they complain about the (largely non-existent) "shaming language" being used against them.<br /><br />It's all part of what makes rational discussion with this crowd so difficult. And I'm somebody who probably agrees with them on 99.9% of the issues. But because I try to tell them that their <i>tone</i> is counter-productive, I get called a traitor, a beta, a virgin, a mangina, a white knight, and a string of other insults.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72306554776546091482011-11-23T07:52:37.873+11:002011-11-23T07:52:37.873+11:00If you're going to build a community out of pi...If you're going to build a community out of pissed off individualists you're going to have to be pretty tough in your language. Kudos.<br /><br />What I don’t understand is that there was a comment just there about “slut shaming”, yet if you criticise a gamer or whatever they’re likely to say “Oh that’s just shaming language” and then totally dismiss the argument. Do you guys actually believe in shame? The idea that there should be limits on your behavior and that community/moral and not just individual standards should apply? Or do you get carte blanche in your own behavior whilst calling others shameful? Just a question.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-91138676625126062832011-11-23T07:39:12.208+11:002011-11-23T07:39:12.208+11:00you just threw in ad-hominems, and stated that Dal...<i>you just threw in ad-hominems, and stated that Dalrock and Roissy loath women, when in their posts there is nothing so far which suggests that</i> <br /><br /><br />Did you see the post at 7:38AM? <br /><br />But it should be obvious that Dalrock is mad at a lot more than just "feminists". Many of his screeds involve throwing ad-homs ("Gilligans" and "mangina") at other men. At other <i>conservative</i> men. He recently claimed that traditional conservatives (aka "manginas")have set social policy in America for the past fifty years.<br /><br />So I would not say that Dalrock hates just women, he hates most people of either sex. If you find ad-homs so upsetting I suggest you try telling that to Dalrock, who is easily the worst offender in this regard.<br /><br />He has a post up at his site caled "Traditional Conservative or Feminist" which consists of him quotng some of his comenters who disagree with him, and then calling them names. <br /><br />One person objects to Dalrock's constant referenves to sluts, whores, and cocks, and the respnse from Dalrock is "I had such high hopes for Severn, but then he broke out the Womens Studies phraseology and even endorsed serial polyandry". <br /><br />Huh?<br /><br />He later responds to another commenter with "I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Gilligan more upset at slut shaming".<br /><br />Take away his ad-homs and Dalrock would be struck dumb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-82551151531221668132011-11-22T21:06:51.022+11:002011-11-22T21:06:51.022+11:00@Mark
Although I have many differences with you, ...@Mark<br /><br />Although I have many differences with you, this really was a well-written, tightly-argued expose of the incoherence at the center of B. Bennett's call for "liberated" womanhood and traditional manhood.<br /><br />Bravo.Twentynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34498183581371816002011-11-22T15:06:08.973+11:002011-11-22T15:06:08.973+11:00Anonymous it seems you are the one unable to hold ...Anonymous it seems you are the one unable to hold a rational discussion, I never said the things I said because I disagreed with your arguments, that is because you never presented them, you just threw in ad-hominems, and stated that Dalrock and Roissy loath women, when in their posts there is nothing so far which suggests that (as far as I have read), which is proof of what I say, you stated the following: "While I agree with you about Mark Richardson, I shudder at the thought of Dalrock or Roissy coming to the attention of the media and being used as the poster child for my (our) positions. They don't just object to feminism, they seem to have a visceral loathing of women as women. " <br /><br />Normally I don´t defend people but so far I haven´t read anything in Dalrock or Roissy posts remotely resembling the hatred expressed by the feminists in their websites (Hannah Rosin in the "End of Men" for the Atlantic or Sharon Osbourne making fun of a man whose penis was cut off...). It seems that for you any criticism of females is an expression of hatred or something like thatHéctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454077123473773383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29406353740558158112011-11-22T07:57:35.185+11:002011-11-22T07:57:35.185+11:00It seems that the words Dalrock uses for women are...It seems that the words Dalrock uses for women are so bad that Mark won't let me post them here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14087099811494933822011-11-22T07:53:10.414+11:002011-11-22T07:53:10.414+11:00So far you haven´t disproved their ideas, you are ...<i>So far you haven´t disproved their ideas, you are just confirming them either if you are a woman (hamster driven, feminist) or a man (mangina, white-knight)</i> <br /><br /><br />This sort of witless garbage is exactly the problem with Dalrock and Co.<br /><br />You combine your demand for a serious logical refutation of your "ideas" with a string of idiotic ad-homs. <br /><br />"Anybody who disagrees with our brilliant IDEAS is either a feminist (if a woman) or a mangina (if a man). So no further refutation of their stupid criticism is necessary". <br /><br />It's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with people whose minds work like this.<br /><br />It reminds me of arguing with 9/11 Truthers - the fact that you diagree with them simply proves that you've been brain-washed by the secret Tri-Lateral/Illumanti conspiracy. Which justifies them in ignoring anything and everything you try to say to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15054514389738603632011-11-22T07:38:02.651+11:002011-11-22T07:38:02.651+11:00Obviously you haven´t read Dalrock's blog or h...<i>Obviously you haven´t read Dalrock's blog or he just made you feel bad. Instead of criticizing mindlessly you should say why do you think Dalrock or Roissy just viscerally hate women.</i> <br /><br /><br />Maybe it's the constant references to "whores" and "sluts" and "meat-puppets".<br /><br />Dalrock has claimed that women (but not men) who divorce and remarry are "whores".<br /><br />The man does not know the meanings of words. He does this all the time, as with his assertion that anybody who disagrees with him is a "feminist". In fact even people who do agree with him in general but favor a less spittle-flecked form of discourse are "feminists" and "manginas" and "Gilligans" in his eyes. And in his prose.<br /><br />I actually agree with him about most (maybe even all) policy matters. I think no-fault divorce laws are a disaster and should be scrapped, for instance.<br /><br />But his words just scream "gibbering lunatic", and that's not what is needed to bring about legal and social change.<br /><br />This site right here shows that it <i>is</i> possible to make a powerful criticism of feminism without sounding unhinged.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-5432791467315062572011-11-21T19:12:16.503+11:002011-11-21T19:12:16.503+11:00Lol on the harsh words for anyone who doesn't ...Lol on the harsh words for anyone who doesn't hate women.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-54542780835090233082011-11-21T18:06:05.906+11:002011-11-21T18:06:05.906+11:00Sunday, 20 November 2011 5:27:00 PM AEDT
Obviousl...Sunday, 20 November 2011 5:27:00 PM AEDT<br /><br />Obviously you haven´t read Dalrock's blog or he just made you feel bad. Instead of criticizing mindlessly you should say why do you think Dalrock or Roissy just viscerally hate women. So far you haven´t disproved their ideas, you are just confirming them either if you are a woman (hamster driven, feminist) or a man (mangina, white-knight)Héctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454077123473773383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47252906623641146672011-11-20T17:27:44.641+11:002011-11-20T17:27:44.641+11:00Sadly, men who have insight into our contemporary ...<i>Sadly, men who have insight into our contemporary situation - such as the local proprietor, or Dalrock, or even Roissy - never make it into the mainstream media</i> <br /><br /><br />While I agree with you about Mark Richardson, I shudder at the thought of Dalrock or Roissy coming to the attention of the media and being used as the poster child for my (our) positions. They don't just object to feminism, they seem to have a visceral loathing of women as women. <br /><br />I just looked in on Dalrocks, where he is arguing, as far as I can tell, that feminists and conservatives are the same people. But he's so incoherent it's hard to tell what he's trying to say. I do get the impression he hates conservatives though, along with women. At least he's catholic about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-25469577197144894412011-11-20T16:10:58.005+11:002011-11-20T16:10:58.005+11:00Mark,
Thank you for your serious and considered a...Mark,<br /><br />Thank you for your serious and considered answer. You make a lot of good points and make my reconsider my position. Obviously the situation is difficult for me because my argument involves looking to the future without very clear guideposts and only rough directions and you have much longer accepted beliefs and traditions supporting yours. Nonetheless my views, or many of them at least, are all too common in the modern world and if a more patriarchal family arrangement is to be maintained it has to be underpinned with strong arguments. Its not illegitimate to recoil a little when we say things like women are "hypergamous" so casually as if women were a totally different or completely irresponsible species, and in a manner which implies that men are free from faults. <br /><br />Many young men too if they’re going to seriously take and maintain such a dominate role in relationships are going to want and need stronger justifications and arguments then just, "I do so because I'm a man", when at the same time women prove themselves capable and responsible in so many spheres. <br /><br />I would also suggest that denying women access to the world of careers could be an "artificial" way for men to maintain power. Power of a possibly more sustainable nature can be found in other ways, although as was said this can and will be difficult to achieve in practice. I think what can be said is that power in life comes from confidence, and true confidence is internal confidence. Whilst we need external means to build our confidence, roles, obligations and regard, we also don’t want to build our confidence at the expense of others or by holding others down. <br /><br />I’d like to say that I've found this a very useful discussion and I thank you again for your participation in it, as always.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67337569098479977832011-11-20T14:06:01.328+11:002011-11-20T14:06:01.328+11:00So is Bennett a conservative or a liberal?
He&#...<i>So is Bennett a conservative or a liberal?</i> <br /><br /><br />He's a neocon. Which basically means that yes, he's a liberal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65500820834976175172011-11-18T20:40:17.127+11:002011-11-18T20:40:17.127+11:00(continued)
to see the partner as the source of a...(continued)<br /><br /><i>to see the partner as the source of all power to be feared respected and deferred to, is to invite problems when the mask slips or situations change and is therefore not a strong basis for marriage</i><br /><br />But that's such a long way from most marriages. Better to say that men need to be respected by their wives for a marriage to be happy.<br /><br />And that can't be taken for granted or simply demanded. You can't just say "I'm your husband therefore you have to respect me no matter what I do or how I act or what kind of man you perceive me to be".<br /><br />There's a difficult balancing act for men here. Part of a modern marriage is doing things, such as helping with the kids or with housework or simply providing company for your wife, which are helpful and will make your wife feel that you are present and that you care and that you aren't too much of a jerk.<br /><br />But if you just did these things the marriage would easily slip into a "sisterly" kind of relationship. You would take the masculine/feminine charge out of it.<br /><br />So men need to make sure they do things that also win a different kind of respect, i.e. the "I look up to you as a man" kind of respect.<br /><br />And that might involve building things; playing masculine sports; doing father/son things; showing roguish charm; getting a promotion or a pay rise; having a bit of grunt in your personality; and making sure the marriage stays sexualised.<br /><br />And it helps if you have distinctly gendered roles. If you read some of the articles in liberal magazines about middle-age divorce, some of the wives seem to dislike the "gender convergence" in the home - they feel as if they have become the men they wanted to marry and they feel as if the husband has usurped their role in the home.<br /><br /><i>Marriage should also be a freeing thing for individuals as we come together as one body and spirit in mutual service and love. It should not in my opinion require technical divisions of the economic sphere, strict divisions of labour or power relations as its foundation as these are not in my opinion truly matters of the spirit or heart which I believe should be overriding principles.</i><br /><br />Jesse, a masculine instinct to provide is not a "technical division of the economic sphere". It is arguably the deepest "matter of the spirit or heart" when it comes to the inner life of men. So much flows from this drive of men to create a protected space for families and communities. It is difficult to conceive of an effective manhood without it. When it is taken away men seem to go into decline.<br /><br />I don't think we are going to agree on this issue. I think there is room for individual women to engage in paid work as long as it does not undermine the commitments of men to a provider role. A society which allows this masculine role to fall away, is, in my opinion, unserious about its future existence.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-27945260045826585112011-11-18T20:40:00.768+11:002011-11-18T20:40:00.768+11:00Either way it occurs, or may occur, when one side ...<i>Either way it occurs, or may occur, when one side has too much power and one "can".</i><br /><br />But men always have this kind of power. Man always "can". It's a question of whether they choose to or not. And as you point out, it's not usually the powerful men who choose to. It's the men at the fringes: the underclass men who are unemployed, who abuse alcohol and drugs, who have a low income, who have poor mental health.<br /><br />Violence is also more common in matriarchal settings in which a man gains access to a woman not through being a provider or a father but by the sex appeal of raw displays of testosterone, i.e. thugging up. Women in such settings seem more accepting of male displays of force rather than less accepting. <br /><br /><i>success requires harmony, mutual affection and love</i><br /><br />But that's the formula for modern marriage. Moderns think to themselves "I'm marrying you because I love you and because you make me happy". And then when there is a period of emotional flatness and they think they have options, they move on. <br /><br />It's not that marriage shouldn't have love at its centre. But it needs buttressing. If a man's masculine identity is tied to his efforts to create a protected space for his family to be emotionally and materially secure, then he will want to battle on through good times and bad. It becomes a life project.<br /><br /><i>If the modern marriage is more confused and less stable then the traditional marriage, and this is the case, then hopefully we can work through this and find clarity with principles of mutual obligation underlying our thinking.</i><br /><br />OK, but how? In practice what happens now is that most women are hypercharged careerists in their 20s; the lucky/skillful ones manage to marry and have a child or two in their early to mid-30s; most then scale back their work commitments and live a kind of modified traditional marriage in which the husband is the main breadwinner and they are the main childcarer but with some overlap.<br /><br />One problem with this adaptation is the first part - the long delay in taking family formation seriously in a woman's 20s leads to all kinds of dysfunctions which many people never recover from.<br /><br />Another problem is that liberals find it difficult to tolerate any continuing relevance of sex distinctions, so there is ongoing pressure to ramp up female careerism relative to men's.<br /><br /><i>Whilst power attracts it also creates the desire to rebel and endless rebellion within a marriage is tedious.</i><br /><br />Good point. You can see this in father/son relationships. If a father asserts authority without having tended to the relationship then you often get rebellion against both the father and the order he represents.<br /><br />But if a father doesn't assert authority you also get problems - so the solution is not a paternal abdication of authority.<br /><br />And marital relationships seem to have a different dynamic. If you are a genial, laid back kind of guy you are arguably more likely to invite a reaction from your wife. She wants to know you are strong, so she will throw herself against you, hoping to meet a "stopping point". The best thing for the husband is neither to yield nor to react angrily or aggressively but to calmly absorb.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-59903925936142098812011-11-18T09:52:42.362+11:002011-11-18T09:52:42.362+11:00The classically abusive man is the weak man. Not s...The classically abusive man is the weak man. Not strong or secure in himself emotionally, perhaps not successful in the world. This weakness might be temporary, chronic, or highlighted by the wife but we don't strike out in moments of strength. Rather than move to overcome weakness such a person rages and finds fault with others where he can. Abuse is one possibility, deliberately ignoring the wishes of another is another. Either way it occurs, or may occur, when one side has too much power and one "can". Its obviously sinful but can be allowed to go on if not checked in some way. <br /><br />A man should be a provider in that both parties should add their strengths to the marriage for the good of the whole. He need not be the sole provider, however, for the marriage to be successful as success requires harmony, mutual affection and love not economic divisions. If the modern marriage is more confused and less stable then the traditional marriage, and this is the case, then hopefully we can work through this and find clarity with principles of mutual obligation underlying our thinking.<br /><br />If we say women are hypergamous we are saying that they are incapable of controlling their desires or weaknesses. Not tempted by things or subject to failings like all humanity, but incapable. This is a basis for inequality. It is right that men should be heads of the household because men have certain strengths and traditions, and order and the commandments make it so. It is not the case though that the wife should be treated as deficient nor that the titular headship should be taken too far.<br /><br />If we say women are attracted to power so we must make men powerful, that power must be tempered by justice and obligation. It would be nice, however, if all relations weren't viewed through the power prism. Whilst power attracts it also creates the desire to rebel and endless rebellion within a marriage is tedious. One of the biggest causes of divorce in a marriage is when one partner looks at another and says "you're not as good as I thought you were, therefore you let me down". Well we're all human, only He is perfect. Weakness in individuals is our natural state and something to be overcome rather than a basis for divorce. To think anything else, to see the partner as the source of all power to be feared respected and deferred to, is to invite problems when the mask slips or situations change and is therefore not a strong basis for marriage. I would suggest it is also not accurate and inhibits true intimacy and understanding between the sexes, which finds its strongest expression through mutual service. <br /><br />We can say, ok lets fix that and take away the option of divorce and people won't be tempted in that way and there will be order. That of course will work, however, marriage "freedom" came at the end of our long history of political struggles and we in the west, conservative or liberal, love freedom. We find in freedom an ennobling and enabling trait that builds the individual and society to its full potential, puts it on more solid foundations and is also a legitimating principle for social relations. Today freedom goes too far and we are in disorder, people though are unwilling to abandon the possibility of freedom and the hope that comes with it. <br /><br />As Christianity was a freeing thing for individuals and society, and it was, its power came through the acceptance of certain fundamental truths. Put God first in all things, love your neighbor, seek righteousness and know that your salvation is through Christ not the religious law. Marriage should also be a freeing thing for individuals as we come together as one body and spirit in mutual service and love. It should not in my opinion require technical divisions of the economic sphere, strict divisions of labour or power relations as its foundation as these are not in my opinion truly matters of the spirit or heart which I believe should be overriding principles.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-89052811818052443262011-11-18T08:27:45.546+11:002011-11-18T08:27:45.546+11:00Jesse, I particularly like this quote:
"Neve...Jesse, I particularly like this quote:<br /><br /><i>"Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman, but all things are through God."</i><br /><br />That's a very deeply traditionalist quote - I should try to remember it.<br /><br />Having said that, I don't like your argument. You wrote:<br /><br /><i>financially, the fact that the man was the head of the household and legally and morally in charge of the finances put him in a very powerful position.</i><br /><br />You then suggested that this gave men too much power in a marriage. <br /><br />Why is this argument problematic?<br /><br />a) Women are hypergamous. It is a good thing, a stabilising thing, if a woman perceives her husband to have power. I really don't believe that women have left marriages because they think of their husband as being too powerful.<br /><br />b) Your argument suggests that men should not be trusted with a provider role. But it is the provider/protector instinct that is the strongest foundation for monogamous marriage. <br /><br />If marriage is to be based on the sex instinct alone it won't last. My sex instinct draws me to my wife, but also to many other women. So why would I commit to her alone? But my instinct to provide and protect has a different logic. It is to want to create a secure and protected space for my wife to raise our children. The provider/protector instinct commits me strongly to the welfare of my wife.<br /><br />c) That's why, too, men who are committed to the provider role are unlikely to be abusively domineering. If you are oriented to creating a safe and protected space for your family, then why would you fill that space with abusive domination? Men who do so are forgetting their role, not following it.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29387028581378500522011-11-18T00:42:57.991+11:002011-11-18T00:42:57.991+11:00Cont.
On the issue of who got a better deal out o...Cont.<br /><br />On the issue of who got a better deal out of marriage, the husband or the wife, financially, the fact that the man was the head of the household and legally and morally in charge of the finances put him in a very powerful position. Women's soft power whilst considerable, or in instances dominate, can't stand against this in the balance. In the West we had civilised marital laws so a women couldn't be flung out of the house or impoverished, this, however, regularly happens in parts of the developed world where there aren't such protections. It also happens when too much power without responsibility is placed in the hands of one party and is an extreme example of when power relations get out of hand and so is relevant to the us. <br /><br />On the point about "marking time until my divorce" that was very much a personal statement. I know that for me personally a divorce would be likely if I were to marry right now, and this is largely based on personality factors and the fact that there is relatively little room for error in relationships as people generally want to leave fairly quickly when difficulties arise. This is obviously something to be overcome primarily by me although societal expectations can help. I'll be aware when I think I can personally, realistically and successfully hold a marriage together and this is very much my aim. However, like other men I'm not particularly keen on experiencing a divorce.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-81303838193661293162011-11-18T00:41:57.340+11:002011-11-18T00:41:57.340+11:00Mark,
Looking at 1 Corinthians 7:3. Contemporary...Mark, <br /><br />Looking at 1 Corinthians 7:3. Contemporary translation:<br /><br />"The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality - the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to 'stand up for your rights.' Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out". <br /><br />Cross checking with other translations its possible that that translation is a little loose, however, the underlying principle of marriage as a mutual, and equal, service is sound and supported by other parts of the Bible. For instance Ephesians 5:21: "Be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ". <br /><br />Marriage is a service to each other between spouses and is part of a greater and more important service to God. It is not about one side having more power over the other or one side abusing their power for personal advantage. <br /><br />Taking another verse: <br /><br />1 Corinthians 11:3: New King James:<br /><br />"The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God".<br /><br />11:8: "For man is not from woman but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman but woman for the man... Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman, but all things are through God." <br /><br />Authority of the husband comes from God and is subject to God. We are not given power in relationships for our own sake. Our traditional marriage relationships, in the absence of strong Christian beliefs, gave too much power to men, and without the restraining influence of mutual service and being subject to God, it was too often exploited. The fact that is wasn't in many cases does not alter the fact that the accepted "ground rules" were too favorable to men and in such an environment abuses could and did regularly flourish. The old staple of "taking it out on the wife" whilst considered base, was very much a reality for many people as human nature is flawed and power over others, be it physical, financial or emotional, can be intoxicating and saying that is no revelation. <br /><br />Its true that women were not required to bear the full costs of divorce when that started to occur, but that did not alter many women's desire to get out of it as soon as they could. Why? Not only because of individual differences between the spouses but because of larger perceptions that their marital relations were unfair to them. Every husband and wife doesn't need to be lectured on the reality of experiencing when a spouse goes too far and in our recent history it was very much men in the driving seat. Today people are reluctant to marry because they don't want to pass under the yoke of their spouses expectations. This is based on a real understanding that marriage involves a struggle for power. Whilst who is in charge may be uncertain today, or geared towards the woman, this underlying issue was still very much a conscious reality of the past. The fact that modern people might be hyper concerned on this issue to a perhaps unrealistic extent does not take away from the fact that such concerns are valid.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-67104744299940844762011-11-17T21:52:24.219+11:002011-11-17T21:52:24.219+11:00I know that if I were to get married today I'd...<i>I know that if I were to get married today I'd be marking time until my divorce.</i><br /><br />That's too pessimistic. If you get a good job, if you choose your spouse wisely, if you invest time into fatherhood, if you are willing to fight for your marriage early on, if you know when to hold your ground, if you're not taken away from home for too long by your job, if you keep the physical side of the marriage healthy, if you act when you feel the connection slipping - your chances of staying married are very high. It's not all a matter of chance - a man who "husbands" actively and intelligently can help to make things work. <br /><br /><i>if women had it so good why were so many of them ready and willing to jump out as soon as they could?</i><br /><br />Partly because they weren't asked to bear the real cost of doing so. Women were allowed to bail out and still claim the support of their (ex)husband and/or the state.<br /><br /><i>I mean men had a pretty good deal, sex whenever you wanted it, domestic labour, and someone to tell what to do all the time.</i><br /><br />i) Enjoyable marital sex requires the wife to be into it. Just going through the motions takes the joy out of it. There is no law that can force a wife to make sex an enjoyable experience for her husband. So men who married in the year 1900 were just as much at the mercy of the sometimes unpredictable nature of the female attitude to sex as men who married in 2000. There would have been many men who made a sacrifice in this area in the year 1900.<br /><br />ii) Domestic labour. But this was matched by men's paid labour. A woman might have scrubbed and cleaned and cooked, but her husband might have spent 12 hours a day digging coal underground. So who had it better? <br /><br />iii) Someone to tell what to do all the time. Do people really get married for this reason? The most powerful of male instincts is to want to protect and provide for a wife and family. A man wants a woman to voluntarily accept him as the man in the family - to see her love and respect for him. That's why most men aren't interested in the use of coercive force when it comes to their wives. Sure, you do get some abusive husbands, but that's not what really drives the average husband.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66476422642242340062011-11-16T10:39:47.908+11:002011-11-16T10:39:47.908+11:00Wait a minute, can it not be said that if women ha...Wait a minute, can it not be said that if women had it so good why where so many of them ready and willing to jump out as soon as they could? As for many of those who stayed behind they had no problem catching onto the vibe of change and cracking the whip. I mean I know many men who just love coming home to do whatever their wife tells them to do too, but that doesn't mean that modern marriage as set up is a fair deal for blokes. <br /><br />Successful marriage requires the mutual acceptance of responsibilities. It does not require, nor can it succeed, happily at least, with one side having too much power over the other. Nor with one side seeing their personal interests as the predominant or sole matters of concern in a marriage.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-42262707645531691682011-11-16T10:11:53.539+11:002011-11-16T10:11:53.539+11:00I guess one of the issues is if marriage sucks so ...<i> I guess one of the issues is if marriage sucks so much for men today, because its been weighted towards women, what was it like for women in the past? </i><br /><br /><br />--<br /><br />Steve Moxon's book, <br /><a href="http://amzn.to/vcY5F0" rel="nofollow">The Woman Racket: The New Science Explaining How the Sexes Relate at Work, at Play and in Society</a><br />belies Jesse's white knighting contention.<br /><br />In the multicultural utopia I find myself in, I come across several traditional women (i.e., women from the past) who have not been infected by liberal feminist memes because they immigrated to the West when they were already adults. These women do not consider themselves "oppressed" when they cook dinner for their family or vacuum the house, and they do not envy men or wish to become men. The same could be said of Western women over 60 years ago, but it can not be said of them today.<br /><br />Jesse takes his cue from all the pro-feminist film propaganda he's slurped up over the years; films that depict women as perpetually suffering and men as perpetually having a good time. What with all that drinking and wenching that supposedly went on constantly who found any time to till the fields?<br /><br />Not only are most women feminists today, but most men today are also feminists because feminism has become firmly entrenched as part of the political orthodoxy. And most people defer to the world view of their elites (inculcated through mass media propaganda) even if said world view has become warped and cancerous.<br /><br />Bill Bennett is a feminist. Jesse is a feminist. Most men I talk to at work are feminists. They would never admit to the label, but they subscribe to sophistries such as "fairness" and "equality" and other Trojan horses on the road to feminist cultural hegemony and male emasculation.<br /><br />In a world that has veered far left over the last century, labeling oneself a "moderate" or a "social conservative" seems to merely mean one prefers a fox trot over a gallop on the road to the West's oblivion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-22257222012564216882011-11-16T08:13:04.041+11:002011-11-16T08:13:04.041+11:00Yeah I hate you because you're a white dude. T...Yeah I hate you because you're a white dude. There is obviously a problem when people get smashed by relationships or the system. I'm no different and I know that if I were to get married today I'd be marking time until my divorce. This is a problem to be overcome though, both societaly and personally.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-26263637296285313672011-11-16T08:04:25.592+11:002011-11-16T08:04:25.592+11:00Jesse --
So I guess the message is that men shoul...Jesse --<br /><br />So I guess the message is that men should suck it up now, because women sucked it up in the past. Sounds like an argument a feminist would make. As a man who lives in the present, no, I do not want to "suck it up" for the "benefit" of "the team", when said team hates me because of my sex and race. But, hey, yep, I should just calm down and carry on, eh, mate?<br /><br />No thank you. Been there, done that, and have the T-shirt, TYVM.Brendannoreply@blogger.com