Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Feminists Fear Men
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


For years the modern feminists have attempted to completely obliterate the need for men in society. They have argued in favor of, marched for, and protested on behalf of the ideas that women can provide everything that a woman needs.

Go into any women's studies program on the campus of any major university and you will learn that women don't need men for economic provision, physical protection, or to even achieve sexual orgasm. Our daughters are being taught that to believe men are necessary for anything is not only pure bunk, but actually a sign of intellectual weakness.

As a result women have shunned personal relationships and sky-rocketed to the top of the business world. Their incomes have increased as they have put off having children, not to mention the thought of getting married till far later in life.

They've gotten themselves into the gym and lifted weights and learned kick-boxing so that at least theoretically they could ward off an attacker. (Of course they haven't been encouraged to pack fire-arms or conceal handguns because for some reason its more "progressive" for a woman to take male hormones and resemble eastern European male wrestlers than it is for the most lady-like among us to blow someone away if their life depended on it.)

Women have been inundated with auto-eroticism methodologies and lesbian love making techniques not only in these women's studies courses but also through popular culture, women's magazines, and cable television. They are also told by that same culture, be it prime time media or TIME magazine, that men at best "are clumsy" in this area, and at worst "just plain don't know what they're doing."

In making all these “advances” there has still been one major stumbling block for the argument of a completely female universe. That has been the production of sperm, male DNA, the missing element to creating a child when paired with a woman's egg. Without this necessary ingredient the entirety of the female-only existence is impossible, women's studies departments are useless, and feminism is nothing more than mindless brainwashing.

This week in what should have been reported as a miraculous breakthrough for traditional families and barren couples, feminists and the generation of media they have spawned hijacked the news of a new scientific development in the creation of sperm cells from a donor's bone marrow stem cells. On a side note chalk it up as one more victory for adult stem cells in terms of actual medical breakthroughs - whereas embryonic cells have still resulted in no known cures.

The way the process works is that adult stem cells can be "coached" into become sperm cells that can be implanted into the egg, fertilized, and hypothetically be brought to term as a human child. The process is in its early stages and even the medical researchers involved in the project are only cautiously optimistic about the practicality of such a discovery.

But that didn't stop the media for immediately lunging for the headlines that embraced first and foremost the idea of a "women's only" future. In fact the stories were also quick to point out that in taking the necessary cells from women's bone marrow that the Y chromosome would be missing therefore such conceptions would only be able to produce - guess what - daughters only. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Brave New World
Those same imminent developments in microbiology alluded to in the article, work both ways. It is useful to remember what Rebecca West, journalist, novelist and companion of H. G. Wells, said: "motherhood is like being one's own Trojan horse."

Being able to clone people has more ramifications than people realize, especially to females. Consider this; researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere announced that they could grow working egg cells in the laboratory if they started with embryo tissue taken from a male mouse.

"These hothouse eggs and their accompanying follicular matrix were so persuasive they even secreted and responded to estrogen, the archetypically 'female' hormone."

Also, in September of that same year, Japanese researchers said they could create robust sperm cells in the lab, too — but only if they began with the embryonic stem cells of a male animal.

In theory, then, male starter cells could be used to make eggs and sperm, and those eggs and sperm could be mixed together to yield a new generation. This would be like old-fashioned, shake-'em up, male-female sexual reproduction (unlike simple cloning), a meeting of eggs and sperm. You could mix and match your fabricated eggs and sperm to generate boys and girls alike.

Except why bother with girls, if you don't need mothers to lay those little egg cells in the first place? You could still have robust diversity in the human gene pool without the need for pesky separate restrooms. True, women at the moment remain useful for their possession of another baby-friendly device, the uterus. But how long will this anatomical detail be an impediment to complete female obsolescence? Already, researchers can keep baby goats alive in an artificial uterus, a big fishbowl of bubbling fluid, for weeks at a stretch. A full-term, full-service exoamniotic cocoon cannot be far behind.

Yet another approach ... with stem cells it can be possible to grow an organ, any organ. Great for growing your own new heart, but also great for growing a womb. Keep the womb alive and functioning and implant the artificially created zygote. Brave new World here we come.

I have to wonder what females WILL have to feel superior about when they are no longer needed to incubate offspring.

Andy

Sillyness
Even as a lesbian I know the world would not be a better place without men in it. In fact I'd miss them and life would at least be much more boring.

In a few words
my point was, I don't thing that men like Denis and Thinkwell really care what people like you and I have to say about our experience or views because they have a big investment in hating feminism (they have stated that it is like Nazism - sig heil, Martha?) and get something from all the quotes they collect and injustices and fears that they seem to keep close to their hearts.

Martha
Just checking this thread after a few days and wanted to tell you I really identify with the post you wrote about feminism because it describes me exactly. I also volunteered for a domestic abuse hotline when I was younger, and you're right, we were expected (and desired to) spend the same help and support to male victims as to females. In the center where I worked, I only heard "men" bashed on one occasion, and that was by a woman who had been repeatedly molested in childhood and who had obviously not yet come to terms with it.

Knowing my beliefs, my personal history and reading yours makes me realize how truly angry and not a little creepy men like Denis end some others truly are. When you tell them that their rants don't describe anything in your experience they just don't read them, because somehow this obsessive, almost irrational campaign is more important to them than seeing any kind of honest picture. Perhaps they, like my colleague, were abused by women in some way and are still exacting a kind of magical retribution on right-wing blogs. Perhaps they write page after page of manifestos and journals which they keep locked away in closets filled with newspaper clippings of all the things self-described feminists have said or done over the past century.

Sometimes, when read these posts, it seems that as the war grows worse and more bloody, people have lost faith in the leadership, the culture, and the future - the really big issues - there are people who get ever more frantic about the problems they think they can grasp, like gay marriage, women, Hillary, and liberals.

Denis are you Christian?
What church do you attend? Do you tithe?

v_palazzi@yahoo.com

The Feminist Mind
Jojo-

For all to see what I post has a basis in truth and fact. The quotes that I have provided show the level of hatred behind feminism. I have brought it out in the open much to your chagrin. Everyone here can follow the refences on their
own. The hatred comes from feminists and not I. These are THEIR ideas, THEIR words. I simply present the information to the many interested men. Your posts have literally not substantive value. You are nothing more than an old troll who is worried about men finding out about the truth of your hate movement: feminism. Too bad. You need therapy more than the catharsis of your blathering posts.

You said:

"I could spend half my life gathering evidence for a plot by Christians to overthrow the government, White house complicity in 9/11, bigfoot, and the evils of all Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, liberals, and Aluminum storm door salesman. But life is short, every breath is sweet, and not even part of that should be wasted."

White House complicity in 9/11?

You are insane.

"evils of ALL Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, ..."etc.?

You clearly are a very sick woman. I can see why you relate to the feminist hate movement-you hate many things.

I wish I could feel sorry for you but in reality the world will be a much better place when you are gone forever. Life IS short. Hopefully a just god will have mercy on your soul.

Allen
Amen.

I suspect McCullough only writes about gays and feminists for one of two reasons: Because those are the topics which generate the most response, which can help to put him on the "most viewed" list or, because....oh, let's not go there.

Just looked in
This is one of those threads that illustrates how people often define themselves by their fears and their hatreds, which are generally joined together, siamese twin-like.

I don't understand men who spend hours of their lives doing "research" and posting long, confusing and tiresome speeches designed to denigrate the opposite sex and their views. But, then, I also realize that there are people who have to define themselves by ther "liberal" and "conservative" views, who I suspect only come close to any kind of feeling when that feeling is fear and rage; and to keep those feelings alive have to make the object an even bigger evil, an enemy out to destroy them and their sex. What a rush!!!! It's got to be better than X-box.

Does all of this vituperation and assault get your heart beating just a little quicker, Denis, your pulse racing, a wonderful little frisson of pearly sweat gathering in your palms and on your forehead?

I could spend half my life gathering evidence for a plot by Christians to overthrow the government, White house complicity in 9/11, bigfoot, and the evils of all Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, liberals, and Aluminum storm door salesman. But life is short, every breath is sweet, and not even part of that should be wasted.

Quick edit!!!
You wrote, "those who have a caring, life giving, spiritual, emotional, and physical relationship with a man they are married to."

My edit would have read, "those who have a caring, life giving, spiritual, emotional, and physical relationship with a man to whom they are married."

MARRIAGE IS A FEMALE SCAM
Eshter Vilar proved it in her book "The Manipulated Man." As long as they are on their backs-the meter is running. Nothing is for free boys-pay up or no sex.
Love is spelled M O N E Y
No man could have concocted a racket like marriage where the man is a slave to his wife and kids.Most likely marriage scam started with early Christianity when the Church discovered that its most fervent followers were women-thus the priests harped on marriage in order to please the females of the flock. Wake up en-marriage is a female scam!

Wow the essays are bustin out.
So many wonderful opinions with such tame voracity. I liked my Womens Study class, got an A. The teacher said I had a real talent for injecting venom with words that cut like a knife, and she meant it as a compliment. Some compliment. I asked her "if our cause is so nice, why must we be mean?" She replied "Just write mean, don't be mean"
Gestell is almost always right, he inserted a knife through the ribcage of everyone's points including the main article's artery and they don't even know that they are bleeding to death. Nice one good writer and so few whiney words.

To American Feminists
I guess it does'nt take much to impress some people. I can sympathize with your life experience SFCMAC but just as you correctly state that Fonda is just one "lunatic", i.e., a single data point so too are your two fathers only two data points. They don't represent the universe of men except to you-and of course the lesbian feminists. Men have created pretty much everything we see, and in fact have created civilization itself. You wake up every morning in a house designed and built by men. You drive in a car designed and built by men, on a road designed and built by men. The institutions of government, the legal system, the protective services such as the police, the military overwhelmingly done by men throughout the ages. We ave great works of philosophy throughout the ages, literature, science, all due to men, men, men. I could go on and on. There are bad and good in both men and women. But all the good things we take for granted, being there when we need them, have overwhelmingly been brought to humanity by men. Even life itself could not begin without the unique contribution of men.

Men give women in this country many advantages and privileges that are very unfair to men. These were put in place largely by men. Let's look at the vote. During the early years of the birth of America only land owners could vote. These were mostly men. But most other men could not vote either-those without land. Women got the vote put in the Constitution BECAUSE OF MEN. It was men who put it in.

The US is currently too focused on its main post-modern domestic policy, i.e., providing for the emotional, physical & financial well-being of its virtuous female electorate: artificially enhanced lifespan, no-fault divorce (80% of divorces attributed to women: alimony, child custody, paternity fraud, etc.), affirmative action/quotas, Female-only technical scholarships, (e.g. Intel), VAWA, welfare state, Title IX, taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in perpetuity. Plus a progressive taxation system (top 50% (majority=MEN) pay 96% of all income taxes) has been put in place by the Democrat party that penalizes men while financing said female-specific welfare state, abortion industry, divorce industry, child custody monopoly, etc. What a fine society radical feminists and their duplicitous metrosexual males with their misdirected sense of chivalry have created for the minimally franchised, expendable male taxpayer.

Only in America can a moronic shock jock be fired for saying something ignorant about women. Only in America can these same women reach sainthood status overnight simply for being insulted. Only in America can three young men have their lives turned upside down simply by word alone of a woman, and have the government (Nifong) itself go on a reckless campaign to destroy these men without a shred of credible evidence, costing each family over one million dollars in legal expenses. Only in America can 80+ university members at Duke, and newspapers, and cable news channels all over the counry go on an electronic lynching in this country one minute after this woman makes her false accusation. And when innocence is given back there is no sainthood for these men. They got something different from the legal system than CAPT Nowak, Mary Winkler, Andrea Yates, Debra LaFave, etc. (this list is long and growing longer).

You may complaign about two men (and remember you had two good grandparents (one being a grandFATHER).

I complain about an entire country, the legal system, legislatures, the unfair hiring/promoting policies directed against men, unequal and unfair application of the law, the media and it's contempt for men, education systems that are unfiar to men and boys.......

Feminism was about allowing upper-middle class women the luxury of "equality in outcome" (e.g., "comparable worth") vice "equality of opportunity" in the world of men while retaining their domestic power-base. Gender is course a social construct when it applies to the traditional world of men, but women should have the privilege of maintaining their traditional "matriarchal" power monopoly ("pregnancy should be a super ability" ) because they have an innate "nurturing" nature. Speaking as member of the selfless, "disposable" gender, somehow I just can't muster up a whole lot of sympathy for women who complain about their lives in America. Grow up, SFCMAC. In fact, to all American feminists: grow up.


SFCMAC
BRILLIANT!

end of thread.

Who's fearful of whom?
The following quote from McCullough is a sidesplitter: "Women like men - real men that is. Women love a man who will provide economic security for them. They want a man who will be their rock and shield in a time of crisis or attack. And women prefer the joy of being sexually complete in the intimate bodily embrace and the emotional, spiritual, and physical connection to a man as God designed it". First of all, I loathe squalling she-asses like Fonda; she's just one sampling of the anti-military and anti-American lunatic fringe that doesn't deserve to share oxygen with the rest of us. Secondly, I was a career Soldier for over 30 years, and always differentiated myself from a doormat, so in some circles, I guess that makes me a "feminist". My mother had two duds for husbands. My biological father was a compulsive gambler who loved the horse track more than his family, and my stepfather was a vulgar, child abusing drunk. In both divorces my Mom asked only for child support---no alimony, and no unreasonable requests. Both of the worthless bastards skipped town and out on their responsibilities. There were 7 children and not much money. If it weren't for my Grandparents, many times, there would not have been food in the refridgerator. My mother and two of my older step-sisters worked to make ends meet and pay off the debts the two wastes of human skin left behind. Later on, it was me who ended up giving my family as much support as I could, throughout my career. Somehow I just can't muster up a whole lot of sympathy for men who complain about women who depend on themselves. Grow up, Kevin.


Loving Your Enemies
by Martin Luther King, Jr.


The following sermon was delivered at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, at Christmas, 1957. Martin Luther King wrote it whi1e in jail far committing nonviolent civil disobedience during the Montgomery bus boycott. Let us be practical and ask the question. How do we love our enemies?

First, we must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. It is impossible even to begin the act of loving one's enemies without the prior acceptance of the necessity, over and over again, of forgiving those who inflict evil and injury upon us. It is also necessary to realize that the forgiving act must always be initiated by the person who has been wronged, the victim of some great hurt, the recipient of some tortuous injustice, the absorber of some terrible act of oppression. The wrongdoer may request forgiveness. He may come to himself, and, like the prodigal son, move up some dusty road, his heart palpitating with the desire for forgiveness. But only the injured neighbor, the loving father back home, can really pour out the warm waters of forgiveness.

Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship. Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the canceling of a debt. The words "I will forgive you, but I'll never forget what you've done" never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally from his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship. Likewise, we can never say, "I will forgive you, but I won't have anything further to do with you." Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again.

Without this, no man can love his enemies. The degree to which we are able to forgive determines the degree to which we are able to love our enemies.

Second, we must recognize that the evil deed of the enemy-neighbor, the thing that hurts, never quite expresses all that he is. An element of goodness may be found even in our worst enemy. Each of us has something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against ourselves. A persistent civil war rages within all of our lives. Something within us causes us to lament with Ovid, the Latin poet, "I see and approve the better things, but follow worse," or to agree with Plato that human personality is like a charioteer having two headstrong horses, each wanting to go in a different direction, or to repeat with the Apostle Paul, "The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."

This simply means that there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. When we look beneath the surface, beneath. the impulsive evil deed, we see within our enemy-neighbor a measure of goodness and know that the viciousness and evilness of his acts are not quite representative of all that he is. We see him in a new light. We recognize that his hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding, but in spite of this, we know God's image is ineffably etched in being. Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad and that they are not beyond the reach of God's redemptive love.

Third, we must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy but to win his friendship and understanding. At times we are able to humiliate our worst enemy. Inevitably, his weak moments come and we are able to thrust in his side the spear of defeat. But this we must not do. Every word and deed must contribute to an understanding with the enemy and release those vast reservoirs of goodwill which have been blocked by impenetrable walls of hate.

Let us move now from the practical how to the theoretical why: Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multi# plies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.

So when Jesus says "Love your enemies," he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies-or else? The chain reaction of evil-hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars-must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

Another reason why we must love our enemies is that hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. Mindful that hate is an evil and dangerous force, we too often think of what it does to the person hated. This is understandable, for hate brings irreparable damage to its victims. We have seen its ugly consequences in the ignominious deaths brought to six million Jews by hate-obsessed madman named Hitler, in the unspeakable violence inflicted upon Negroes by bloodthirsty mobs, in the dark horrors of war, and in the terrible indignities and injustices perpetrated against millions of God's children by unconscionable oppressors.

But there is another side which we must never overlook. Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.

A third reason why we should love our enemies is that love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend. We never get rid of an enemy by meeting hate with hate; we get rid of an enemy by getting rid of enmity. By its very nature, hate destroys and tears down; by its very nature, love creates and builds up. Love transforms with redemptive power.

The relevance of what I have said to the crisis in race relations should be readily apparent. There will be no permanent solution to the, race problem until oppressed men develop the capacity to love their enemies. The darkness of racial injustice will be dispelled only by the light of forgiving love. For more than three centuries American Negroes have been battered by the iron rod of oppression, frustrated by day and bewildered by night by unbearable injustice and burdened with the ugly weight of discrimination. Forced to live with these shameful conditions, we are tempted to become bitter and to retaliate with a corresponding hate. But if this happens, the new order we seek will be little more than a duplicate of the old order. We must in strength and humility meet hate with love.

My friends, we have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way.

While abhorring segregation, we shall love the segregationist. This is the only way to create the beloved community.

To our most bitter opponents we say: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process and our victory will be a double victory.

real people
Allen wrote:

"MrsV You have basically told me that I am an immoral human being who will spend all of eternity in a burning lake of fire - so your foolish "drunk on the street" comparison is far from hurtful - but I appreciate the sentiment just the same."

I never said that to you, nor of you Allen.
I am not the judge of your soul.
I believe there are good people who can do bad things.
I believe that there are otherwise good people who can be deceived, and dismayed.
I believe that there are people who are going a wrong way, but are not "immoral" inherently.
If I ever said you were a "bad" guy, that was not my intent. We really don't know people here.
But we both know there are-truly-bad people out there in this day and age, unfortunately.

I also believe that as much as you may feel misunderstood, a lot of bigotry, through propaganda, is leveled at me too, as a Christian, with a conservative perspective, largely.

I think there is a lot of misinformation going on out there about a lot of people. But I think it is mainly aimed at specific groups, including Christians, and people of faith.

I think those who push it use words like "hate" and "judgment" and "bigotry", and don't even know what they are saying. Generally, they are the owners of most of the "isms".

I used the words bigotry, because there is true bigotry going on against us to this day. Not because I am a proponent of bigotry, or because I practice it.

I have seen otherwise good men die because of a lifestyle they were sold on believing they were.

Not because we didn't love them.

Just because this is what they believed.

I hope some day the day comes when all the -true-bigotry is put aside.

Til that day many suffer, more than you probably know or see.

There are real people beyond the words and stereotypes, everywhere.



Feminism
I hate feminism. It destroyed my mom's three marriages; my sister's first marriage; and my marriage.

Feminism's allure is that it appears to be rewarding and sexy; however, in reality it is selfish and lazy.

Since the feminist movement, the divorce rate in America is over 55% (the highest of any industrialized country), the marriage rate marriage rate dropped 50% since 1970; and, abortion has killed over 41,000,000 children since 1973.

In the marketplace I observe that women have yet to innovate through great design or engineering. Patent applications from women have not increased. In general great technology has not come from the hands of women.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphab.html

MrsV For will and Allen..apology if..
On a related note. Earlier I made a comment in reply to will and Allen here.

I shared how Liberals baiting posters on Townhall was akin to a drunk on the street approaching a perfect stranger and babbling comments to the person, as if said drunk knew them,(the perfect stranger).

I stick by this analogy, because it makes a lot of sense to me.

Anyone here, of any view or persuasion, need only have one life experience with an incoherent unknown in a city street to understand the odd confusion of that experience.

I kind of feel it's the same way when people here stand up and make grand proclamations about specific individuals. Such behaviors suggest the party is not with it, to go on at a clip about-supposed-details of another's "soul", when neither party has ever met.

By the same token, I don't want my words to be taken so personally that they offend.

My "drunk on the street" allusion still stands. But my apologies if that was taken in a hurtful or personal way by Allen or will.

Sometimes it is difficult here to make a point without offending. I don't think the opinions offend, although the ideas conveyed may be upsetting, but it is important to try to make those fine points without becoming personal.

Although both parties were pretty rude to me, it was not my intention to level that back at them.

I just wanted to come back to make that clear.

P.S. For will. You asked who "made" me "Queen".
Well, I am royalty in God's eyes. I am a child of God and a daughter of the King.

I think my Husband would consider me his Queen. But then, I consider him my King, under the King of Kings :-)



MrsV's Reply to AudiR and "$"
"They're -- how you say -- examples. (What DO they teach in schools these days?)"

No need to become sarcastic or rude with me AudiR. I am well aware of the English language and its implications in context. I am not going to argue what your meaning was, in the comment you made. The way it was phrased could ALSO give the implication that you affiliate men with monkies, and the rude, or crude allusion was pretty clear.

I understand that may-or may not-have been your exact meaning when you wrote it. But any other person could have taken it that way. As, generally, one does not make a statement and parallel it to a thing that is not analogous. Unless the party has a reason for doing so. To make a point, let's say..

In the context, what you said could have been implying another thing. Your statement could have been misread, and that was obvious.

I do not need your insults, or your friend "$"'s crude comments to reconsider what I've said..But I will leave it at that, as your words are here for readers to determine what you meant..

By the way.

I could not tell you *what* they are teaching in schools "these days", since I have been out of grade school, high school, AND college for quite a few years.

I am sure if this is your interest, or concern, you can do an online search and find many curriculum to your liking.

Perhaps, while you're at it, you and "$" both might want to consider a course in manners too.


Thinkwell...
I have to attempt a guess at the answer to Lemonaide's question about your name. Could it be that a "Thinkwell" is like, but smaller than, a "Thinktank"? As in, an expert panel of one.

Or, is "Thinkwell" a jar from which thinking is drawn, in the way that an inkwell is a jar of ink?

Or am I just wrong?

MrsV
In defense of AudiR10...

"If I see myself as an ape's ancestor, I am "free" to act all ape."

Well, yes, but that's only if you miss the point by such a wide margin that you feel it appropriate to use the specific discussion as a platform to endorse a creation myth.

Hope that stirs your soul, and perhaps you bowels, just so you can have the pleasure of going ape meecrob.

MrsV
I used monkeys as an example of something I think is cute and funny but don't want around my house -- not as a substitute for "men."

I could have said Leopards, Fuzzy Dice, Wiener Dogs, Nintendo, Harry Potter coloring books or robot vaccuum cleaners. They are all things I like in their place but do not see their place as being in my house.

They're -- how you say -- examples. (What DO they teach in schools these days?)

MORE FEMINIST HATE
demosthenes says:

“self-centered” nature of the contemporary amoral American female."

Lemonade says:

"I am dead serious when I say this - you remind me of the guys who end up on Court TV
and American Justice who stalk women in the middle of the night raping and killing because they hate their mothers or some other woman significant in their life."

WOW! You got all that from that post???Talk about hysteria and exaggerated rhetoric. A guy calls American females self-centered and immediately a feminist equates him to a mother-hating stalker, rapist, murderer!!!

LOL!!!

Typical American woman....and typical feminist!!

NOW HERE IS SOME REAL HATRED....FROM FEMINSTS.

The following hatred of men has been spoken, written, and taught these last 40+ years. Here's what a REAL hate movement looks like:

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
Ice And Fire - Andrea Dworkin”Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”

Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students - Catherine Comin

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”

Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”

Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan

“‘To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking d*ldo.”

Scum Manifesto - Valerie Solanas

“(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”

Against Our Will p.6. - Susan Brownmiller

“We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.”

- Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women

” How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”

In “Female Liberation” - Roxanne Dunbarr

“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it “Her”. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.”

Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin

“The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.”

- Andrea Dworkin

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”

- Andrea Dworkin

“The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations - for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right - these institutions are real and they must be destroyed.”

- Andrea Dworkin

“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.”

The Woman’s Room - Marilyn French

“The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children….”

“Functions of the Family,”
WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…”

- Sheila Jeffrys

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”

Former Congresswoman - Barbara Jordan

“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.”

(Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.) - Catherine MacKinnon

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”

- Catherine MacKinnon

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”

From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 - Robin Morgan

“All men are good for is fu*king, and running over with a truck”

Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000.

Feminist Hate
Demosthenes-

you have been labelled. This is a typical feminist ploy. Anytime a man debates a feminist with facts the feminist finds a strawman to tear down. In your case the strawman is that you hate all women and you should spend your time defending yourself against this charge.

Instead, keep on speaking out against female chauvinism and misandry!

Margaret Sanger: More Feminist Hate

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) is the Founder of Planned Parenthood. An interesting overview of this gems political idealogy can be found here:

Margaret on infants:

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Evil. Pure evil.

Margaret on immigrants, blacks, and the poor:

“immigrants and indigents:”…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization.
Spoken like a true elitist.

Margaret on the extermination of blacks:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.

I knew feminists hated Blacks but I didn’t know anyone of them actually made a public statement.

Margaret on sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

Spoken like a true Feminazi.

Margaret on the right of married couples to bear children:

“Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

Spoken like a true Marxist.

Margaret on the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

Spoken like a true Feminazi.

The book “Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920’s”by Kathleen M. Blee (University of California Press, 1992ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)) documents extensively the direct lineage between Modern Feminism and the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).

It is frequently stated, and therefore commonly believed, that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Suffragettes were the source of the women’s rights movement. “Women of the Klan” proves this to be untrue. Many of the Suffragettes, were also deeply involved in the WKKK until well after passage of the 19th amendment.

The WKKK became a very powerful controlling force both in the KKK as well as society itself. Women used various “informal networks” through churches, schools, neighborhoods, and various social groups. They formed “poison squads”, which were used to spread rumors, create sexual fears about black men, initiate “selective shopping” boycotts, and pass political information around.

Lynchings of Black men were common in the Old South. Most of these were instigated in defense of “white womanhood”. The author writes that the WKKK “dissolved a myriad of social, economic, and racial issues into powerful symbols of womanhood and sexual virtue”.

Lulu Markwell, a President of the WKKK wrote, “It is the duty of the American mother to stamp out vice and immorality.” This overblown sexual imagery galvanized millions of American men to rise to the mindless protection of the purity of Protestant white woman. A Black man simply needed to be accused of rape, or of somehow spoiling white womanhoods sexual virtue and he would be hung. White men commited acts of evil in the name of evil White women.

The KKK came to believe that womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in life”, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhood”. Sounds alot like today’s (and yesterday’s) feminists.

The famous 1960’s feminist mantra, “No will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world”, was actually published by the WKKK in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s.

America is living in a sickening point in history. America is suffocating in sexist policies which openly and unconstitutionally discriminate against a father’s fundamental right to be in the family, to be a property owner, and to raise his children. For all men and for all fathers (White & Black) these are dark days reminiscent of Jim Crow.

It is time for Black men and Black women, and White men (and good White women) to make peace with each other. Much evil was commited by White men to Blacks in those days. This evil was done in the name of evil White women. Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson need to hear from us that the true battle to be waged is not between us, but rather by all of us against our common enemy:

The Feminists.

demosthenes
“self-centered” nature of the contemporary amoral American female."

You don't just hate feminism and you don't need to know what it is because it is women you hate. Never mind Feminism. I noticed this before in
several of your posts through the months.

I am dead serious when I say this - you remind me
of the guys who end up on Court TV and American
Justice who stalk women in the middle of the night raping and killing because they hate their mothers or some other woman significant in their life.

Many of the posters here are just grinches - can't be happy about anything. You problem
appears to me to be far more serious.

Oh looky - feminists!
yawn....zzzzz.....

Ms. Martha: Mighty magnanimous of you...
"How about we start putting an end to the war between men and women? I think you guys have it rough in many ways."

That’s a mighty magnanimous sentiment, ma’am, especially coming from someone who had the privilege of choosing between working at home and/or in public arena. Reality: Contrary to myth of a “Patriarchy” popularized by the MSM, the de facto “Shadow Matriarchy” is alive and well. Despite all the not so apparent benefits FEMINISM (i.e., Gender Marxism) has brought to contemporary American society, American MEN continue to do all the heavy lifting (90% of overtime, 95% of all work related deaths, etc.), pay the majority of income taxes (Top 50% of wager earners (Majority: MEN) pay 96% of all income taxes that support a welfare state that benefits women) & do 98% (women comprise 30% of the military, but only 2% of casualties ) of the dying in a war against a group of ruthless MEN that would love to put women like you in a Burka. Why? Both sexes have a biological instinct to protect Females. American society reinforces this instinct by socializing American men into being “other centered” vice the nutured “self-centered” nature of the contemporary amoral American female. Men are taught that they are “expendable” vice the female populace. They are taught that “normal” men sacrifice everything IOT assure the comfort & security of the American female. Evidence? Male politicians were elected and enacted social welfare programs ($1.4T per year) that benefit women at the expense of the majority male taxpayer base. In addition, society is in process of electing female politicians who are in the process of accelerating the male to female transfer of income/ & opportunity (i.e., Divorce Industrial Complex (e.g., child support, alimony, paternity fraud, etc), sexist progressive income tax system, VAWA, affirmative action, quotas in perpetuity, etc.). Men, of course, will continue to be peons in support of the multi-trillion $ feminist “Entitlement Industrial Complex.” You ever notice a man never says it is a “MAN’S WORLD.”

Gestell: Really?
reply to inkling_revival
Have you read Lemonade's post? If you actually checked out some women's studies programs, you might be surprised. But if you checked out something like that, then you wouldn't be much of a conservative, would you?

+ As opposed to being a neo-marxist academic in a “soft science” academic department (comprised of otherwise unemployable fellow neo-Marxists, purveyors of “mental masturbation” & other professional students of historical/cultural revisionism in a university in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts) who thinks that her & particular ideology & gender imbue her with an esoteric insight on all matters pertaining to the reality in general and the human condition in particular? If the rest of us were intelligent enough to appreciate the subtle beauty of social engineering (gender/racial quotas, wealth-redistribution, etc.) we would of course be leftists as well. Hence, because we don't agree with the dominant leftist-paradigm we must be stupid and conservative.

+ Reality? Philosophical Conservatives: (a) believe in “equality of opportunity” vice the “equality of outcome” favored by neo-marxists like you, and (b) believe in changing the left-wing establishment, i.e., ending the NEA monopoly WRT the “Public Education Industrial Complex” which is dominated by the pedestrian intellects of “Education major” females.



average feminism
jcdean1978 writes:
Sources or not, we all know that there are a lot of feminists out there with this mind set.

Martha writes:
I'll give you that! There's a great variety of feminists out there and most certainly there are feminists who see no value in the presence of men on the earth. (Boys v. Girls and vice versa has been going on for a long time, let's face it. This always makes me think of the song, "Reuben and Rachel.")

But that's not what Mr. McCullough said/says. He consistently implies that this is the norm for feminism. That is simply inaccurate, and I would submit that it does nothing to improve the relationship between men and women.


My questions for posters:
Do you know that there are feminists who are strongly opposed to abortion?

Do you know that many feminists despise the despising of men? That they speak out for fairness for both sexes?

Do you know that many feminists are men who simply want to reduce the divide?

Do you know that many feminists will fight as hard against men being abused by women (or anyone) or against men being falsely or unfairly accused of rape as they will fight for a woman who has been honestly victimized?

.....
I consider myself a feminist, and I will gladly agree that there are irrational goals in feminism and that there should be a name for the ism that fights for men's rights -- or, really, that we should move toward fair rights for all, period. This country is full of opportunities and has a lot of resources to go around.

My feminism is about supporting efforts to help women to stop playing the victims in society, to take responsibility for their lives, and to not tolerate abuse. These goals are beneficial to men and to women. Men have much to gain from sharing the world with women who are strong, capable, responsible and...well...not whiny!

Admittedly, that classifies me a "moderate" feminist and also a supporter of men. But, really, look on the college campuses. There aren't many feminists. I still see mostly young women who think they have to keep a guy by sleeping with him before they want to (NOT a feminist idea at all), and who want a big, strong, tough guy, even though they think that means that they *have* to take physical abuse and forced sexual encounters. My son is appalled at how many women sell themselves short, and at how many men truly mistreat their girlfriends.

Older feminists like me just wish young women realized how they got what they got. I never even protested on the streets and I stayed home with my kids when they were young. I'm crazy nuts about my husband of more than 25 years, and I don't have him "whipped." And, honestly, I think I'm one of the most common examples of feminists around. I'm just not as noticeable as the ones you'd like to believe are representative.

Let's get real: No one (no one rational, anyway) thinks that our world will someday rid itself of men.

How about we start putting an end to the war between men and women? I think you guys have it rough in many ways. You could look at what we have to deal with in the same way. It's a lot easier to solve problems when *both* sides are willing to consider the needs of others. Just ask my happy husband.

Martha
p.s. BTW, jcdean, it was very nice of you to ask Mr. McCullough to support his claims with references!

Thinkwell, again
You might also look at the post from Denis. We have here someone (not alone, by all means) who
equates feminism with lesbianism. I confess I don't know that much about lesbianism, but I'll bet
he is just as wrong about that as he is about
feminism.

But he does make a very long post, signifying
nothing (to borrow from the old Bard). The most
embarrassing thing however is not the ignorance and
ill will that is behind it, but he is obviously
getting off on it - and so early in the morning too.

It makes me blush.

AudiR10: A monkey's reply
We don't FEAR men
We just don't need one around the house all the time (or around the office either, as far as that goes). To say that since I don't have a man around my house I must therefore "fear" men is, um, wishful thinking.

I like monkeys, but I don't want one of my own. If I want to see monkeys, I know where to go and look at them. Then I go home. To a house without monkeys.

+ Since you believe that you have the gravitas to speak on behalf of all other women, speaking on behalf of all of the “monkeys”, we are all thankful not to be subjected to your personage & misandric vitriol on a fulltime basis.

+ Actually you fear what can’t control WRT ensuring you own personal financial, spiritual, emotional & physical comfort at the expense of the disposal monkey. Quite a few of us monkeys would prefer not to compete for the privilege of basking in your goddess-like presence. The problem is your apparently perpetual state of “singlehood” is of course totally due to the apparent short comings of the male of the species since you are so perfect in everyway, shape & form. Every monkey should fight for the chance be to an ambulatory wallet for an embodiment of the "goddess."

Maybe if you didn’t take yourself quite so seriously, you might not be quite so angry at men in general…But that would detract from your quality time spent in your cloister with like-minded, enlightened “female intellectuals.”


Thinkwell
Feminists
Feminists are women who perceive that power, prestige and control over one's life are conferred by having a p*nis. Because they've tried without success to grow on, they're determined men won't have one either.

That quote came from PuppyChen who posted immediately after you did.

One must consider the audience. As I said in my
original post, "There are an awfully lot of posters here who haven't the slightest idea what feminism is all about." Thanks PuppyChen for making my statement so very, very clear in spite of its less than perfect syntax.

To attempt to spell out the various types and
degrees of feminism to this crowd is a waste of
precious time. You either know it by now or
you don't and don't want to.

Or I could also say, perhaps I will give a civil
answer when I am asked a question with civility.

I love your moniker. Does it mean "I am one who
tends to think well of people"


The REAL reason feminists fear men
The REAL reason feminists fear (and hate). (poor things!!)

My good friend at http://www.angryharry.com has this to say:


Cl*t Shortage Fuels Envy, Jealousy And
Sexual Frustration Inside Lesbian Covens

"I need a really good cl*t in the face every morning, or else I become rabid and I start to hate men."

What is it with these particularly horrible lesbian women that they have such anger towards men, eh? They know virtually nothing about men! Indeed, they know less about men than just about any other human being on the planet.

Gay and straight men know about men all right. Black and white men know about men too. Heterosexual women certainly know about men. And even transsexuals who have undergone gender reassignment surgery - in either direction! - will probably know far more about men than does your average lessie.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problems with women being lesbians. Indeed, I share a lot in common with them. After all, I like women too!

But some lesbians have a real attitude problem towards men. They are continually stirring up hatred towards men.

Why?

They know virtually nothing about men compared to most others. And they have to put up with men far less so than do most other people. So what enrages these men-hating lesbians so?

Why, for example, does Beatrix Campbell (the woman whose peppery face appears above) seem to disseminate lie after lie after lie about men? Why does she seem prepared to damage the lives of so many families and children with her demonising lies? - e.g. see Slap That Face.

Why does the lesbian Julie Bindell persist in trying to incite women into committing acts of violence against men? - e.g. see my blog here.

Why is the disgusting and degrading lesbian-inspired Scum Manifesto such a popular text in Women's Studies courses?

Why is Valentine's Day - a day in which romance between couples is traditionally celebrated - specifically targeted by lesbian groups to 'promote awareness of men's violence'? - e.g. see Take Back Valentine's Day by Wendy McElroy

And why do such revolting lesbian women invade and disrupt a small conference on the plight of battered husbands, while screaming, shouting and trying to intimidate all the participants? - e.g. see this 2-min YouTube video.

Are men who have been battered not allowed even to talk together about their experiences?

It just doesn't make sense.

Or does it?

Imagine, for the moment, that tomorrow morning you - a man - woke up to find that some unholy menstrual gas had escaped into the ether, and that, henceforth, most women only fancied lesbians. All of a sudden, your hopes and dreams of getting it together with a decent woman - or, indeed, of getting your end away - would be completely thwarted.

And if no woman thereafter ever even considered you to be a welcome intimate prospect, it would drive you insane!

And you would also be furious at those lesbian women who were getting their greedy hands on all the goodies.

Your goodies.

Up and down the street they would parade themselves with their girlfriends and their womenfolk hanging on to their arms - but you have no chance at all.

You would envy those lesbian women, and you would hate them for persistently luring away from you all those lovely women whom you desire so strongly - and so often!

And so you would do your best to undermine the standing of those lesbian women, and you would try to demonise them as best as you could, in the hope that women might be turned away from them, and instead start being attracted to you. And I also imagine that this would be especially true on days like Valentine's Day, when no romantic card popped through your front door, and you felt particularly lonely and unwanted.

Well, this is the situation in which many lesbians do, in fact, find themselves.

There are all these gorgeous heterosexual women around the place, but they have no interest in them.

Nope. They are just not interested.

"We want a pe*is," they will say. "Cl*ts just will not do."

And, in my view, this is why so much of the hatred towards men is fuelled by lesbian woman. They are jealous. They are envious. They are sexually frustrated. And they are angry; because men get a zillion times more access to those cute little cl*tties that they so desperately want for themselves.

And it is precisely because there are not enough of these interesting little organs available for them that they also sneak their way into places like domestic violence shelters which are packed full of women who are currently alleging abuse. They are always trying to wheedle their way closer to those women who might seem as if they could be particularly easy to 'turn'.

"That was an awful experience. Men are terrible. Here, hold my hand," they will tell them.

"Men are abusive and disgusting. Here, let me put my hand upon your knee."

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking d*ldo. Here, try this real d*ldo instead. It's much better than a pe*is."

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. So, show me your sweet little triangle and I'll show you mine."

Yep: This is what is going on out there.

And so my message to all those lesbians who are angered by the fact that women mostly prefer sex with men rather than with women and who, therefore, also keep trying to fuel hatred towards men is this.

... ...

"I've got a weeeeny, and you-hoo haven't got one - naa nana naa na."

Oh Angry Harry. You are such a fool. You don't really believe that many lesbians hate men and so try to drive a wedge between men and women simply because they are jealous, envious and sexually frustrated, do you?

Yes.

I do.

Just imagine what it would be like for heterosexual men if just about every woman that they ever wanted to be with had absolutely no interest in them because they were attracted only to lesbians. Many men would probably do exactly what many of these particularly hateful lesbian 'feminists' are, in fact, doing. They would do their best to turn women against lesbians, and they would also hate lesbians.

Well, isn't this the very sort of thing that seems to be going on?

And did we not see a similar thing happening when blacks and whites first started intermingling their private parts in significant numbers some years ago? There was some resentment on both sides of the fence.

And how else would you account for the fact that a very high relative percentage of the 'feminists' who blatantly stir up hatred towards men are, indeed, lesbians?

Why is it that those who know the least about men are so hateful towards them?

Why is it that those who can most happily avoid all intimate relationships with men feel so impelled to damn them?

How is it that those people who know the least about men seem to attack them the most?

There is only one answer, in my view, that fits the evidence.

And this is that these particular lesbian women are jealous, envious and sexually frustrated, and they hate men for attracting away from their clutches the very women whom they, themselves, desire. And they also attempt to gain access to more women both by seeking out those who are currently angry with men and, hence, who will likely more easily be seduced by them, and by trying to demonise men in the eyes of all heterosexual women in order to encourage more of them to give up on men.

Well, that's my opinion!

...

...

Not convinced, eh?

OK. I'll try again.

Imagine that you - a white man - woke up tomorrow morning and found that nearly all your womenfolk were only interested in black men.

How would you feel towards black men as your long, lonely, cold years of continued rejection went by? - with almost no prospects at all of getting close to the women of your dreams. The ones that turn you on.

All those millions upon millions of lovely women floating past you. But hardly any of them percentage-wise have any interest in the likes of you. What they want is to have dark black skin close to their bodies; not yucky white skin like yours.

You would be deranged with jealousy, and you would probably rejoice at the thought of murdering those black men.

You would loathe and detest them.

Yes, you would. Admit it.

Well, in my view, this is how many of these lesbian women feel about men. And this is why they continue trying to stir up hatred towards men.

With much success.

They hate men!

And this is why, for example, the lesbian Andrea Dworkin said, "I would like to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig," and why, as a result of expressing sentiments such as this, she was lauded by many lesbian 'feminists'.

And that, my dear reader, is hatred through and through.

......................................

Hmm. I think I'll have an anti-lesbian week on Angry Harry over the next Valentine period in order to counter their disgusting anti-men propaganda. After all, what is sauce for the goose, ... Someone please remind me of this idea; because I'm sure that I'll forget about it. But I really do think that it is about time that men fought back in a more direct manner against all this lesbian-inspired hatred rather than simply spent their time sitting around complaining about it - which just allows them to continue getting away with their perfectly horrible campaigns.

And that was my second opinion!

All those in favour say, "Ay."

"Ay."

Motion carried.

Anti-lesbian week it is!

Awesome Article
Rock on Kevin, you said what needs to be said. Next time though, please point to more references for the feminest organizations that promote or suggest these type of ideas and media outlets suggesting such ideas.

Sources or not, we all know that there are a lot of feminists out there with this mind set.

reply to inkling_revival
Have you read Lemonade's post? If you actually checked out some women's studies programs, you might be surprised. But if you checked out something like that, then you wouldn't be much of a conservative, would you?

Chen
"For some boys, however, the traumatic loss of their father is translated as a virtual life-sentence of unresolved and repressed feelings, self-medication through drugs and risk taking, and a life long journey of trying to heal themselves and find their own place in the world."

All I gotta say is, "yep".

Never knew dads were heroes to the average son either; that's informative. I thought it normal not to have heroes.


In response to viruddh
That is the best (and only) answer I have received so far! Which only indicates to me the utter lack of good explanations.

It appears to me that the unspoken argument is that women are different, and thus deserving of different, more protected, treatment. Personally, I agree with that ideal.
However, it does seem an awkward fit with the common perception that women can fill any male role and should have equal treatment in all things.

Apparently this still bears repeating
viruddh wrote: "... women probably have not pushed for registering for the draft because they are not for the draft for anyone. However, they have pushed for being allowed to be in all parts of the military. I don't know if that has been a battle won or not."

viruddh, if your goal is to highlight feminism as a noble seeker of equality rather than as a self-serving special interest group, then you aren't doing it any favors.

Women are clearly underrepresented serving in harm's way in Iraq. Even though women are qualified for 85 percent or more of military positions, they make up only 15 percent of our armed forces (an even smaller 11 percent of those deployed), and comprise but a meager 2 percent of those making the ultimate sacrifice of dying for our country (personally, I think this number should be zero).

Another factoid you’ll never see passing from a feminist's fingertips: even when counting childbirth as a form of our nation's work, women make up only 13 percent of work (plus birthing) related deaths.

Compared to the pine box basement, the so called "glass ceiling" looks pretty good.

The bottom line is that the greatest burden one can take on in society is the sacrifice of life itself. And by that measure (deaths incurred in building and maintaining society - birthing children included), American men take on a grossly disproportionate share.

Percent U.S. military deaths in Iraq (latest war only):
Men about 98 percent (3228)
Women slightly over 2 percent (73)

Percent U.S. workplace plus birthing related deaths (typical recent year):
Men about 87 percent (5812 working)
Women about 13 percent (501 work + 357 birthing)

Think well - see clearly. :)

Note that different citations may produce slightly different numbers, but the variance is not significant. For example, the percentage of women reported in military service varies and typically is listed as 15 percent (the source cited below lists 14 percent).
_____________

http://icasualties.org/oif/female.aspx

Irag Coalition Causality Count (through Jan 07)
Female Fatalities: 73 2.21% of Total (3301) [x]US Only
(be sure to check the "US Only" box)
_____________

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_02
86-399923_ITM

Gender and the propensity to enlist in the U.S. military.
(Special Issue: Women in the Military)
Publication Date: 22-JUN-98
Author: Segal, Mady W. ; Segal, David R. ; Bachman, Jerald G. ; Freedman-Doan, Peter ; O'Malley, Patrick M.
COPYRIGHT 1998 Transaction Publishers, Inc.

"Despite the large numbers of women who served in World War II (265,000 were on active duty in 1945), their representation was 2 percent or less until the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973. Since then it has risen, sometimes sharply, sometimes gradually, and now stands at approximately 14 percent of all active duty personnel (WREI, 1998)."

"Women are now permitted in over 90 percent of all active-duty job categories in each of the services (91 percent Army, 93 percent Marines, 96 percent Navy, 99 percent Air Force, 100 percent Coast Guard). The percentage of actual positions open to women varies from 62 percent in the Marine Corps and 70 percent in the Army to 94 percent in the Navy, 99 percent in the Air Force, and 100 percent in the Coast Guard (WREI, 1998)."
_____________

http://mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/chusa_04/pages/0409
mm.htm

MATERNAL MORTALITY

"During the past several decades, the rate of maternal mortality in the U.S. has declined dramatically. Since 1982, however, the maternal mortality rate has not declined significantly."

"In 2002, 357 maternal deaths resulted from complications during pregnancy, childbirth, or up to 42 days postpartum. The maternal mortality rate of 8.9 per 100,000 live births was not significantly different from those reported in recent years."

"The maternal mortality rate among non-Hispanic Black women (24.9 per 100,000 live births) is more than four times the rate among non-Hispanic White women (5.6 per 100,000 live births). This disparity has widened since 2000."
_____________

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/000546
02.htm

Maternal Mortality -- United States, 1982-1996

"In 1996, if the maternal mortality ratio for black women were equal to that for white women, the national maternal mortality ratio would have declined by 32% from 7.6 to 5.1 per 100,000 live births."

[note: look for the nice chart at the bottom of the cited web page]
_____________

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/1998/Sep/wk5/art03.
htm

Job-related deaths are less likely for women
Originally published September 30, 1998

"Women suffered 2,506 (or 8 percent) of the 31,567 job-related fatalities reported from 1992 to 1996. During the same time period, women accounted for slightly less than 50 percent of the workforce."

Chen, I'm almost speechless....
THANK YOU!!! Yours was an astonishingly powerful and compelling post.

I would only add a brief note about the importance of dads to their daughters, which I can't even claim as original. With credit to Dr. Meg Meeker, "Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters", a father serves a vital role as the first love interest in a young heterosexual girl's life. How he treats her can teach her that she's valuable, worthy and deserving of respect from men. Her relationship with her father prepares her for all of her subsequent relationships with men, and helps her make informed decisions when she chooses a partner. His absence motivates her to prematurely seek relationships with other males, which dramatically increases her risk of self-destructive behaviors like drug use, teenage sex and unwed pregnancy.

Also, young boys, with an absent father, also seek masculine role models in their lonely search for identity, they often find these in celebrity athletes and entertainers, or in youth gangs. Neither influence is beneficial, both increase the boy's risk of antisocial behavior and negative outcomes.

All of this modeling, teaching, guidance, advocacy and discipline are part of the "support" a father must provide his children, but none of these things can be written into a support check.

FEMINISTS, GAYS & THE IMPORTANCE OF DADS
Feminists
Feminists are women who perceive that power, prestige and control over one's life are conferred by having a p*nis. Because they've tried without success to grow on, they're determined men won't have one either.

Freud was 100% right about p*nis envy.

Gays
Those who claim homosex is normal natural behavior are unable to explain why there is actually a functional difference between sperm swimming towards eggs and sperm swimming towards faeces; alternately why there is actually a functional difference between sperm swimming towards a cervix and inert saliva in the vaginal tract incapable of swimming anywhere.

Sex between men and women, whether undertaken for pleasure or procreation, uses our genitals for their natural and intended purpose. Homosex does not.

Importance of Fathers
The belief system that boys can grow up to become mature young men without the input of their fathers and other male role models, has become increasingly discredited.

Although many individual boys manage to reach adulthood successfully without their fathers, statistically it is clear that boys without fathers are more likely to underachieve at school, have discipline problems with their teachers, suffer mental health problems, get entangled with the juvenile court systems, become involved with drugs, take more life threatening risks and have a poorer overall life trajectory with regards careers, the formation of permanent relationships and the successful raising of children.

It is true that many, though by no means all, adolescent boys like to rebel against their fathers, dismiss their authority and test their value systems. However, for young boys their fathers are their first and most important heroes, heroes who they know will protect them and love them, who will teach them the innumerable skills which they intuitively know men need, and above all, who will show them day by day the path of manhood.

For many boys the loss of their father through divorce is the end of their childhood, and the beginning of a journey of inexplicable grief, uncertainty and bewilderment.

These boys cannot fathom why their fathers not only failed to protect and love them, but were actively excluded from their daily lives. As they try to process their grief without recourse to words, these boys not only lose faith in their own families but also their belief in their own future place in society.

As they witness their fathers’ loss, they know that this must be their fate also.

Worst of all, these boys cannot and do not understand when they find their father inexplicably abandons them. These boys are unaware that their fathers have been defeated in their desperate attempts to remain part of their families. They do not know that custody is awarded against their dads, that access rules are tenuous and not enforced, that his work prevents him from shifting to the town where his son has been taken, that the financial burden of state-enforced child support payments takes away the opportunity to travel to see his son, that his new girlfriend or partner insists that the price of her love is the diversion of his emotional and financial support to her and her children.

All that these boys know is that one day their father has gone, and that he doesn’t ring nor visits nor sends postcards. Being a child, his logic often informs him that he must be a particularly bad person to deserve this fate, and that the real reason for this abandonment is his own unworthiness.

And so his childhood ends, and a journey of risk begins.

For many of these boys this is a journey full of difficulty, since they not only are burdened by unfathomable and overwhelming feelings of fear, grief, betrayal and anger, but also bereft of the natural parenting style of his father. Many fathers give their sons a unique mix of understated affection, strong boundaries, unspoken encouragement, practical wisdom and high expectations. Most fathers intuitively understand the inner life of their sons, and prove structure, strength and guidance to allow this inner life to flourish. All fathers, unknowingly and unconsciously hand on to their sons the essential confidence and happiness of simply being a male human being.

For many boys, the loss of this role-model and guidance has devastating consequences. It is true that many boys of divorced families survive this journey, although not without showing the damage. For some it might be a lack of confidence and engagement. For others it might be brushes with the law, or oppositional behaviour at school, and consequent lower achievement and fewer job options.

For some boys, however, the traumatic loss of their father is translated as a virtual life-sentence of unresolved and repressed feelings, self-medication through drugs and risk taking, and a life long journey of trying to heal themselves and find their own place in the world.

For a few boys, tragically, the loss of their father is a death sentence, and their bodies are found in car wrecks on cold mornings, or hanging in the stillness of a suburban garage.

For all of us, the loss of fathers in the lives of their sons is an unfolding societal catastrophe. As more and more boys are damaged by the ever-increasing rate of divorce and separation, more and more damaged boys are disengaging from families, schools, careers, and society. As more and more of these boys reach maturity, fewer and fewer functional young men are able to take part in stable careers and being fathers for their own sons. And so more and more of their sons will embark on their lonely journeys.

How selfish of self-seeking gays and lesbians to demand the right to have children outside of the healthy, complimentary man-woman relationships that God ordained.

Virtual drive-by rant
Lemonade, nice rant, but how about instead making a serious attempt at a civil reply to the many honest questions and objections to feminism posted here. For example, you could start with Tallil2long's latest post. Or explain why a reasonable person shouldn't see the very name "feminism" as disinclusive and/or sexist.

There are plenty more questions that could be asked, but just those two would make a good start.

Think well - see clearly. :)

Tell me Mr. McCullough
"What is it that so scares feminists about the existence of men that all they can do is long for the day when they no longer exist or serve any useful purpose?"

Is it OK for a Christian to lie if it gets people
to believe in your way of thinking? (and by that
I mean the true Christian way, of course).

talli2long
Equal opportunity is not the same thing as equal
in all things.

The above was just a statement. To answer your
question as best I can, women probably have not
pushed for registering for the draft because they
are not for the draft for anyone. However, they
have pushed for being allowed to be in all parts
of the military. I don't know if that has been
a battle won or not.

Paucoremhominem
There are an awfully lot of posters here who haven't the slightest idea what feminism is all
about, but yours was the dumbest. It was in fact,
so bad, that I can't believe you even believe it.
By the way, if you must take on that egregious
name, at least spell it right. It is Paucorum Hominem.

I am a long-time, marched-in-the-streets-for-the-
ERA feminist who not only does not hate, but actually loves my father, my husband of 35 years,
my sons, my son-in-law, my grandson, and I have a
great deal of respect for any number of other
worthy men.

The radical feminists that you posters are talking about are hardly a blip on the radar.

There is a somewhat bigger percentage of women who are fed up to the gills with the quality of men they find hanging out there, but that does not mean that if they could find the right kind of guy who is worth some time and trouble, they
wouldn't be absolutely thrilled.

My daughter went through grad school and then
spent a year abroad doing some research and then
decided it was time to get married. She really
made it her goal as she did with other things
she has accomplished. She has some hair-raising
stories about the creeps she met along the way
(and I don't mean that they just were not suited
for each other; these men didn't have the slightest concept of what committment meant, unless
it was a commitment to live with their mother & mostly at her expense.)
But she did find a gem amongst the rubble in the
end and is very happily married and the mother of
the above mentioned grandson of mine.

For the record, I checked out three different
women's studies programs on line, all of which
are in state universities of 35,000 or more
students. And contrary to what Mr. McCullough and many posters suggest, there was not a "how to make love to your lesbian friend" course in the bunch.
Nor was there a "how to get rid of men" course to
be found. There were a lot of history courses,
with the obvious bent on women's status throughout history. There were some literature
courses and an art history course here and there.
There are courses in Feminist Theory - which many
of you should take before you mouth off unknowingly.

This is a sentence from one of the on-line
postings on feminist theory "Topics likely to be covered include feminist theories of reproduction, history of childbirth, midwifery and obstetrics, birth control, eugenics, adoption, maternal and infant health, sterilization, reproductive justice, and reproductive technologies. " No wonder the world
is going to h*ll in a handbasket.

I've got a wonderful idea. Why doesn't Mr. McCullough write just one column without mentioning
liberals. I can't imagine what he would write, if he couldn't blame all the evils of the world on
liberals, feminists, homosexuals, illegal aliens, and communists/socialists. But perhaps we must
forgive him because he obviously is not one of the brighter bulbs in the lamp.

follow the money
steve66oh wrote: "The answer is to preserve parental/family rights for the parents who DON'T file the divorce. Judges should say to the plaintiffs, 'You want to leave, go ahead, if you want me to force HIM out, show me where he's been convicted of a crime against the family and its yours.'"

Steve - what are you thinking? On its face that may seem completely even handed and logical, but what about all the lawyers, judges, psychologists, social workers and other government parasites and hangers-on in the divorce industry? Don't you care about their livelihood?

Sorry about that. My point is that trying to think about what may be best for the children will probably only confuse you - to really know what's going on, you must follow the money. What else could explain the destructive mess our family law system has become?

Although I haven't seen any statistics to back this up, I also strongly suspect that the sexist, punitive measures men are subjected to by our family court system actually considerably exacerbates the violence against women numbers that feminist pretend to be so interested in lowering. Maybe its just me, but I think setting the capricious hand of the family law machine to arbitrarily clean out a man's pockets (ofttimes to the point of debtor's prison), to kick him out of his home, and to then virtually cut him off from his reason for living (i.e., his children) would tend to send more rather than less men over the brink of hopelessness and into what-have-I-got-to-lose? violent despair. But I could be wrong.

Think well - see clearly. :)

PS: Although I generally frown upon revealing personal details over the internet, I'm happy to report that I have absolutely no personal ax to grind here.

I know better than to ask this, but...
Why is it that feminist organizations apparently never pushed for women to be required to register for the draft?
Aren't women just as capable as men, just as patriotic, just as responsible? Is it not patronizing to continue to treat women with kid gloves in this regard?

Don't get me wrong: I'm traditionalist enough to NEVER want to see women drafted. But how does one square the feminist claim that women should be equal to men in all respects, yet aren't willing to see women share equal responsibility for national security?

I'd prefer *thoughtful and civil* responses, please.

Nazi Feminists
It appears Misandry is alive and well.

An inkling of logic and reason revived
inkling_revival hits a home run: "The common denominator of all cultural progressivism seems to be the destruction of ordinary families and their ability to reproduce".

Exactly. It is bad enough that the mainstream media is infusing our culture with this meme, but what is criminal is the way that it is backed up by law both in code and in practice (see post of steve66oh).

With regard to feminism (one of the prime instruments of this attempted destruction) I find it fascinating that few if any feminist ever have the intellectual integrity to admit that the name "feminism" might possibly be disinclusive and/or sexist. Just bringing up the question usually shuts down any vestiges of civil discourse as the question is answered with ad hominems or is simply ignored. The same goes for bringing up inconvenient, politically incorrect facts about grossly greater deaths men incur in building, maintaining and protecting society.

The feminists are like the little kid squeezing her eyes shut, fingers in ears, screaming "nah-nah-nah-nah". If they don't hear it, it doesn't exist (and they won't have to acknowledge it and possibly even be [shudder] grateful).

I firmly believe in equal opportunity for all, but let the outcome chips fall where they may. Dirty little PC lies are still dirty lies.

Think well - see clearly. :)

Happy feminist
Is it just me or is happy feminist an oxymoron.The feminists I know always seem to be unhappy about something. Instead of modern feminism being about celebrating the uniqueness of women, it has become about tearing apart , and puting down the uniqueness of men. Before you dismiss my thoughts as antifeminist ,know that I have raised a daughter with a masters degree in psychology, has a National College Championship in Fastpitch Softball, has a commercial vehicle drivers licence, completely adept at operating farm equipment, Plays piano and saxaphone and has so many other accomplishments that if I were to list them all ,you would all think I was just braging on her. Best of all she is secure in her specialness as a woman of character , who is about to get married to a lucky man.

Gestell
Sounds like a straw man fallacy to me. When's the last time you saw a Women's Studies department staging a seminar on Woman's Suffrage or Job Opportunities? Do you REALLY think those are the matters McCullough was addressing?

Leftist fallacy of the day...
This was not a brilliant article, but it gave McCullough a springboard into defending the appropriate difference between men and women in society.

This, in turn, gave the Leftists among us the opportunity to display their a) scorn, and b) inability to reason.

The trope of the day is "[person who disapproves of radfems] is threatened by independent women."

Not that I think my words will persuade any leftists, but I need to assure whoever's reading this thread that most of us do NOT fear independent women, per se. What we fear is ripping civilization to shreds.

The common denominator of all cultural progressivism seems to be the destruction of ordinary families and their ability to reproduce. Sexual revolution? Destroys the primary incentive for men to marry, creates epidemic of STDs that attack fertility, multiplies single-parent families & attendant social ills. Abortion? Reduces births dramatically, causes sterility, causes rift between spouses. Homosexuality? Reduces population available for reproduction, increases depressive disorders, STDs, attacks incentives to build ordinary families. Liberalized divorce? Breaks up families with attendant social ills, frightens people away from marriage. Radical feminism? read the article. Etc.

The health of civilization rests squarely on the health of the family. Thus, those of us who are concerned about the civilization we're leaving to our children are going to continue promoting the ordinary, healthy, time-tested family structure.

No, we don't fear independent women. We see the culture in a world of trouble, and we think we know the cure.

reply to Tamalak and others
Columns like this one, and a lot of Doug Giiles' and Mike Adams' stuff are too weird for my taste. Tamalak does the best job of sending up McCullough--applause!

Now back to the weirdness. This column is like some kind of automatic writing exercise in a therapeutic setting. Kevin doesn't actually make any coherent arguments; he just indulges his fears and anxieties. He neither knows nor care to know anything about feminism, is unaware that just maybe there has been a need for women to work to better their situations (votes, job opportunities, you know, all that crazy, left-wing, lesbian stuff).

Certainly I won't believe Kevin if he says anything in a future column about how we're supposed to improve the lives of Muslim women; you just gotta know that he'd love to see all women in burkhas. Kinky.

Allen and Martha
Allen, You are really evolved!

If I weren't already happily married, I would ask you.

Martha - Posters like you and Allen, (and a few others) are what draw me back to TH. It's worth sorting through the dreck.

women box diff then men
I have sparred with women I cover womens boxing it gets more attention to my site. I will not spam it here. Female boxers approach the sport differently in a distinctly feminine way. I am not putting down the women game. There is one female boxer who is to the sport what JLo is to music.

God made men and women differently. I would love to marry a female boxer because of her womanly attributes and the fact we can shre some things.

One gender is not complete without the other thank GOD!

uhhh here's why
"perhaps he can explain why "Real Men" desperately love to watch lesbian sex?"

We're not desperate to watch lesbian sex. Women are hot, they're even hotter in groups, they're super-hot when they're excited, and they're ultra-hot when they're excited in groups. Get it?

will..pretty nutty..
will writes:

"Mrs. V Don't know who crowned you king (or queen). But please remember you live in a democratic pluralistic society. You absolutely have a right to your own opinion but do not have a right to mine."

I don't even recall addressing you mr "will".
Nor do I recall having a problem understanding "society", and I surely don't recall saying you, or anyone, has no "right" to their "opinion". So I have no idea where you're treading..

"Authoritarianism & foolishness combined in posts such as yours offer scary thought for the future of democracy."

Since you've come in with one Liberace' sweep, with your opines about my comments here, mr will, I really am not sure to what you are referring.

Or are you like the rest of the Liberals on here?

Prone to strike up contentions with perfect strangers, who have said nothing directly to you? Nor have had any discussion with you previously, except to freely express their views like everyone else on here?

Ok, I think I see, you are just sort of random nasty.

No real comments of mine you have a concern about.

Just a big flamboyant swish 'n sway, because..

*You* say so..


Yes..

My reply..

*See my previous comments about insulting strangers by drunks on street*







Because *You* Say So..
Allen wrote:

"Kevin McCullough is not a real man"


Because "Allen" says so..


It never ceases to amaze me how people who disagree with an author's sentiments will stoop to making slanderous, and dishonest comments about them, simply because they can do it.

Simple rule of thumb, I stated earlier.
Reader's, a tip. Tend to disregard comments that are non-nonsensical, in the sense that they make derogatory, untrue or inflammatory statements about another person.

Someone tried to point this out to Slacker earlier on here. His discussion dipping into the name-calling and the so-very-Liberal slanderous way.

Often one can smell nasty coming just by the nickname, of course. Laced with plenty of "straw men" as another noted. Rife with lying stereotypes, and words the columnist never said!

Handle with prayer..

These commenter's remind me of today's biased and bigoted Liberal TV.

They use their actors as parrots for their bias, and simply state their skewed view as if it is some understood truth for viewers to see/hear.

It always reminds me of Hitler's technique, of telling lies long enough that people will think they are truth.

This is the way a *good* Communist conducts them self..

Or a drunken stranger on the street..


Why Feminists Fear Men
Thinkwell, Ken, Dr. J
"/sorry your experiences with women have been so disastrous, sorry you find them so awful."

JoJo
If addressed to me, I find some women extremely stimulating in so many ways. Especialy those who know how to express THEMSELVES. Know the power they posess. My problem is that some seek solutions to their equivocations to others. In other times and cultures necessity created what today are considered inequities. As we progress and conditions improve those differences are disolving. At one time men drove autos because they could turn the crank to start them. With electric starters....well.
The war of the sexes continues. To bad.......

my last post for the evening...
JoJo writes:
Talil and Martha
Martha, I only included you because you were part of the discussion, not to put you down.


Martha writes:
I didn't think you were putting me down at all. I was just checking my memory.

I have thought the same thing you mentioned about the possibility of cheap credits for McCullough by his choice to write sensational stuff.

However, I am often more pleased and interested with the content of the posters, anyway. So...maybe it's okay. He serves as a sort of catalyst for discussions that needs to be had.

Every so often, we get a poster like Tallil2long, who makes me think hard, and be amazed at the goodness to be found in humanity. To be able to agree to disagree, and to do so with this level of respect and dignity, is, in my mind, one of the highest forms of human decency.

I have to say, that, since his departure from the forum, the quality of posting has, I believe, deteriorated. I'm not referring to everyone, of course!


To Tallil2long, in case you check back tomorrow:
I do want you to know that I have since changed my views of force and the possibility of just war. It's just that the raising leaves you with little exposure to military people. I truly appreciate your sacrifice and sincerely hope that you safely return to your loving family very soon.

Peace to all,
Martha
(the old-fashioned, former stay-at-home mom, who sees differences between men and women, loves being married, and still considers herself a feminist -- some people are just so weird)

Thinkwell !
Thinkwell, thnks for the nod, and excellent points. I liked your use of "Patriarchy(TM)". Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

Kate Millet, "Sexual Politics" 2.3, (1969) writes: "Patriarchy's chief institution is the family. It is both a mirror of and a connection with the larger society; a patriarchal unit within a patriarchal whole. Mediating between the individual and the social structure, the family affects control and conformity where political and other authorities are insufficient... Serving as an agent of the larger society, the family not only encourages its own members to adjust and conform, but acts as a unit in the government of the patriarchal state which rules its citizens through its family heads."

But the advertising industry says that up to 80% of discretionary spending decisions are made by women - it seems that the family "heads" would be the ones to make the spending decisions. In light of the pandering by advertisers to female purchasers, it would appear the men no longer head the households, and the Patriarchy(TM) has been replaced by... dare I say it... matriarchy.

George Orwell, in "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool", March 1947, writes:
"There are families in which the father will say to his child,'you'll get a thick ear if you do that again,' while the mother , her eyes brimming over with tears, will take the child in her arms and murmur lovingly,'Now, darling, is it kind to Mommy to do that?' And who would maintain that the second method is less tyrannous than the first?"

Bill Clinton says "When fathers pay their child support, they rediscover a connection that they and their children desperately need" - Hey Bill, did you pay your support? When someone asks Chelsea about her Daddy, will she say 'Mostly, I remember that the money was always there, there was some other stuff, but the money was the important thing'? Wait - Chelsea will say 'Mom, Dad, yeah, but it was really the VILLAGE that raised me!'

Finally, Jerry Rubin, "Do It! Scenarios of the Revolution" (1970) writes:
"The revolution declares war on Original Sin, the dictatorship of parents over their kids."

Rubin's revolution declares war on civilization, and conservatism makes a big show of "protecting marriage" by banning (gay) marriage, instead of resisting the liberals real attack on family.

Ironically, it's definitely fashionable for politicians to talk about fatherlessness. Everyone on the spectrum from Laura Bush to Barack Obama is on record, but they never say WHY is there so much fatherlessness. (and, back to the original article, artificial sperm would increase fatherlessness dramatically...)Bush's solution is to find and fund more male teachers, coaches and mentors, Obama points to his work to strengthen child support collection and DV protection. Everyone assumes that fatherlessness is caused by fathers walking away from their families. Brinig, "These Boots Are Made For Walking", Amer. Law and Econ. Review V2 N1 pp126-169 (2000) reports that about 75% of divorces are filed by women and claims that "expectation of sole custody" is the best predictor of anyone's decision to file a divorce. The USCB Pub P60-230 (2006) reports that 84.4% of sole custodial parents are women. In our system, filing a no-fault divorce is usually NOT an act of "walking away", instead it's an effort to force out the other (male) parent. Cause and effect, here's the liberal war on family in a nutshell.

The answer is to preserve parental/family rights for the parents who DON'T file the divorce. Judges should say to the plaintiffs, 'You want to leave, go ahead, if you want me to force HIM out, show me where he's been convicted of a crime against the family and its yours."

WHY MEN FEAR WOMEN
Is this just a bunch of lesbians or a real shake-up?Men know women have been playing games for years. Are they finally showing their true colors? That is why they hate single men-as a group. But as individuals women love single guys because they know we have lots of time for them, unlike married guys who are broke and have a wife watching over them 24/7.
I say women are just playing head games, as usual. Once they say they don't need our penises, then the last reason for putting up with them is gone.
I'm agnostic about whether a woman can really love men-except for mothers. I woman is just as likely to lie to have sex as a man is except that a man almost always winds up paying for it.
In reality this is what they always have been doing-using sex as a weapon, and this is just the h-bomb. Since more men than women are gay-I'm confident that as a 57 year old bachelor I still have a few years ahead of me.

No matter how you see it, it's sexism
... feminism, that is. Ah well, I suppose you would like us to see up as down and pink as blue, too, but there's no getting around it - feminism is an inherently sexist word (and concept).

U.S. women already have more than equal rights. True and total equality is unachievable because we humans are a dimorphic species. By nature, men and women are not interchangeable - never have been - never will be. Disingenuously setting the bar to "true and total equality" is a feminist tactic to attempt to ensure never-ending "victim" status.

Tell you what, will, if feminist women are really interested in "true equality", then I'm sure the "death industries" in the U.S. work place have female quota openings in lots of high risk jobs they'd be more than happy to fill.

Think well - see clearly. :)

Wicked and Witches.On Fe-manism and Lies
I don't understand all this beating around the bush with with words and things.

The proposal that someone's offered, in Mr. McCullough's article, as a keen "solution" for "fertility" concerns "for Lesbians", only boils down to one thing.

It is a wicked set of ideas, wrapped around a lying mindset, pursued by liars who don't want the truth, bound on making a life for themselves outside of the loving province and mandate of God.

Like many ideas, that in theory seem to be good ones, that of the commune, for instance, when applied over time, some-like this- become monstrous, disastrous, and create dangerous ways of living, with a very destructive end.

This is the fruit of the "me" generation.

The amalgam of 60's paganism and self-love run amok.

For inherent in a homosexual "lifestyle", (that's a joke) is the very seed of death.

It is this perverted narcissism which makes one blind to what is good for them, indeed, to their own heady end.

This the the forever lauding and caressing of one's self.

This is the standing and lingering at the mirror so long, one forgets who he sees.

These are the very ethos on which end time civilizations have been based.

Their shunning of God's goodness has made them into apes.

No "view"..

Sorry to say..

Just shrews explaining the "skew"..

Only in going down to that terrible, beautiful humbling, with God, will they ever see the light!


CORRECTION
"Marraige" should be marriage.

I'M SO DISAPPOINTED
I waited all week to read Kevin McCullough's opinion regarding how the homosexual lobby was responsible for Don Imus being fired from CBS and MSNBC. What a disappointment.

Well, I guess I'll have to wait on next week's column, "SAME SEX MARRAIGE AND GLOBAL WARMING: HOW ONE EFFECTS THE OTHER".

Why Feminists Fear Men
The discussion, pros and cons, took me back to the furor of the late '60s and '70s when Feminism was the big "evil" in our society, according to some, at least. Phyllis Shafle and the Eagle Forum ladies, were one such, who staunchly proclaimed that women should be subservient to their husbands.
Never could quite rationalize how such a strong
,UN-subserviant woman as Phyllis, could characterize herself as a "proper" wife and mother! Could she have been acting under the orders of her husband? I doubt it. He seemed to have acted as a "house-husband" while she toured the nation.
As a past active feminist, married for several decades, and too far into senior status, I find the re-emergence of the "fear factor" rather funny. Some women prefer to marry, others don't. The same goes for men. It's a matter of choice, or,in some cases, previous experiences, that have soured their outlook on married "bliss".
Once read a statistic that showed that, while married men lived longer than single men, married women tended to die earlier than single women. Hmmmmm.



to be clear
"men did not change these things for women, women changed them for themselves."

Thinkwell, Ken, Dr. J
/sorry your experiences with women have been so disastrous, sorry you find them so awful.

When my mother was born, women were not permitted to vote. When she was an adult, women were expected to become nurses or teachers, if they were educated at all, so they "would have something to fall back on." If they were abused, beaten, or cheated on or raped they had little recourse to take care of themselves unless they were independently wealthy. They could not turn to friends, because until feminists came along those things were considered the fault of the victim and something to be ashamed of. Before feminists empowered rape victims, they were seldom taken seriously by lawyers or police. This is not a generalization, I personally knew of such victims and what happened to them in the 50s and early 60s.

Men did not change these things for women, they changed them for themselves. Thank God I didn't marry a man who is so mysoginistic and threatened by women (yes you, Thinkwell) that he spends all his time nursing imaginary injuries and hasn't become a professional injustice collector.

D

Why Feminists Fear Men
The discussion, pros and cons, took me back to the furor of the late '60s and '70s when Feminism was the big "evil" in our society, according to some, at least. Phyllis Shafle and the Eagle Forum ladies, were one such, who staunchly proclaimed that women should be subservient to their husbands.
Never could quite rationalize how such a strong
,UN-subserviant woman as Phyllis, could characterize herself as a "proper" wife and mother! Could she have been acting under the orders of her husband? I doubt it. He seemed to have acted as a "house-husband" while she toured the nation.
As a past active feminist, married for several decades, and too far into senior status, I find the re-emergence of the "fear factor" rather funny. Some women prefer to marry, others don't. The same goes for men. It's a matter of choice, or,in some cases, previous experiences, that have soured their outlook on married "bliss".
Once read a statistic that showed that, while married men lived longer than single men, married women tended to die earlier than single women. Hmmmmm.



I should have referenced my post

Thinkwell 4:58 pm. Last sentence.

Tallil2long that's cool & choir-preachin
Tallil2long writes:

"In response to To MrsV: I knew the way I expressed myself was intended as a snub. If I can't repent of doing wrong (that is, admit it was wrong and turn away from it), then what kind of Christian am I?"

I never said not to admit your wrongs, nor repent of wrongdoing, Tallil2long.

As for what kind of Christian you are, I don't know..

"Jesus could chase the moneychangers out of the temple, and shout Hypocrites! to the Pharisees, without sin. I'm not the Son of Man: I think maybe a meeker approach is indicated for me. Thank you for your encouragement, but I was right to accept Martha's censure for that comment."

I am not sure I caught that fine point, and I often do.

Far be it from me to urge you to *not* do what you think your Christian duty is, Tallil2long.

Nor was that my intention..

Did she really say this?

"We are firmly committed to ending Women’s suffrage wherever it occurs."

Suffrage is the right to vote. Is she really committed to ending Women's voting rights? Perhaps she does not know what she is saying.

Women Hit Hardest

Plane Crash Hits Women Hardest, POW study finds

The crash of the ValuJet flight in the Florida Everglades hit women hardest, says a new study just released by the Propaganda Organization for Women (POW).

POW President Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname said there were both men and women aboard the ValuJet flight when it crashed. "But in every situation, women are hardest hit. Obviously that rule applies to plane crashes as well."

"In virtually every situation, women are at a disadvantage compared to men," Hyphenated-Lastname said. "Naturally, this also applies to death. Beginning in childhood, boys are encouraged to play war games, or cops and robbers and other games in which the players pretend to be shot and killed. Therefore, boys grow up with valuable training and experience in dying that puts women at a disadvantage. Society imposes this limit on girls and women. Like the sneaker commercial says about girls: 'If you want to empower me, teach me how to die.'"

Hyphenated-Lastname explained other ways in which her organization reached its findings: "We know that violence against women is always wrong. And the flip-side of that coin is that violence against men is sometimes great. Now, this was a very violent plane crash. So obviously all the violence against women was wrong, but some of the violence against the men was justified or tolerable. To these men we say, 'stop whining.' "

"It seems likely that some of the men on that plane were not willing to give up their lives. This is part of the backlash against women. We see the same thing when men do not want to be fired, demoted, passed over for promotion or discriminated against in order to assure equality. These men do not want to give up their privileges. We assume that some men on that plane did not want to give up the privilege of life, either. But obviously, if they died, then a woman might get their jobs. They might claim that they 'only want to go on living.' The real reason is they just want to hold women back." "However, it is a matter of controversy as to whether any men on the plane actually died," Hyphenated-Lastname said. "We know that death is the ultimate form of victimhood, and we also know that only women are victims. Therefore it's debatable whether any of the men on the plane actually died, or whether they merely underwent a radical deconstruction of their Eurocentric consciousness."

"We studied the plane crash using the same methods we employ to study and identify domestic violence, discrimination and sexism," Hyphenated-Lastname said. "All those studies show that only women are victims. So obviously there were no male victims on the plane that crashed."

"Our study defined death thusly: It's death if it happens to women, and it's not death if it happens to men. This is, after all, the same way we define discrimination and sexism. This unfair, one-sided ultimate suffering of women is simply not tolerable,” said POW president, Hyphenated-Lastname. We are firmly committed to ending Women’s suffrage wherever it occurs.

Feminists fear men
A scan of responses here conclude that unhappiness in women are created by men. Males are the source of your discontent and therefore men must discounted. I say to those women, look to yourself for the source of your condition. After all if you as a gender can accomplish everything and you are still dissatisfied, then its because you didn't do what you need to do to reach total nirvana. Don't blame some man for your shortcomings.

Feminist v. Reality
I was involved with a feminist, engaged to her. She complained about almost everything, including my Ph.D. program. She disparaged my family (farmer/rancher). But I brought her home to meet my family. Many family friends came to my parent's home to meet her, mostly farmers and ranchers. And a long time friend of my mother came, who had been a widow for more than twenty years. And Alyson asked her, very condescendingly, and "What do you do?"

LaVerne replied: "I farm."

Alyson's eyes opened wide and she blurted out: "All by yourself?"

LaVerne quietly replied: "A by myself."

The difference in character between these two women was striking. The ones who rant and rave and demand the most from men, deserve the least. All the while there are women who work every day, year in year out, without complaint, and make a life for themselves. LaVerne has since retired from farming. And I don't know where Alyson is.
Dr. K

Feminism IS sexist by its very name

To those of you who would cut feminists slack because "not all feminists are like that or think that way", let me remind you that, when it suits them, virtually all feminists will lump all women together to garner whatever victim points are deemed useful to the moment. You've all heard the litany - 76 cents on the dollar, the Title IX nonsense, the glass ceiling, the evil Patriarchy(tm), the VAWA (only women can be abused), etcetera ad nauseam.

One thing is certain - anyone who self describes as a feminist is labeling himself or herself with a term that *is* inherently sexist. Feminism, by name and by definition (look it up), is all about furthering the special interests of *females* (usually at the expense of men, children, society, and/or even normal women). Feminism (I like to call it female-ME-ism) is all about getting greater than or equal goodies and rights with nary a thought to taking on equal responsibilities. If feminists were really concerned about equal rights and equality, they would call themselves egalitarians, equitists or some such.

If you pay attention, you can't help but notice that feminist reasoning is generally ad hoc and hypocritical. For example, when it suits their goodie grabbing purposes, most feminists will assert that men and women are virtually interchangeable and that to treat women otherwise is sexist and unfairly discriminatory. But you almost never see a feminist turn over the coin of rights and examine the hidden side of duty. Like feminist consistency and logic, all talk of interchangeability magically vanishes.

When was the last time you heard of a feminists protesting the 2 to 98 percent body bag disparity which our service women are "subjected" to in Iraq? (What you will hear is about the brave sacrifice of our *menandwomen* in Iraq, relative numbers conveniently unspecified - apparently death must hit women harder).

Another factoid you’ll never see here passing from a feminist's fingertips: even when counting childbirth as a form of our nation's work, women make up only 13 percent of work (birthing included) related deaths.

Compared to the pine box basement, the so called "glass ceiling" looks pretty good.

The bottom line is that the greatest burden one can take on in society is the sacrifice of life itself. And by that measure (deaths incurred in building and maintaining society - birthing children included), American men take on a grossly disproportionate share. For the most part men do this knowingly and willingly because God/nature has made men that way. However, that doesn't mean a little open gratitude (or even simple acknowledgment) wouldn't be appreciated, but I think men would settle for just plain equality before the law - especially family law (then just let the chips fall where they may).

Instead we have a climate of male bashing and female friendly divorce law that is slowly killing the pillar of American society upon which the next generation depends: the intact, married-to-each-other, man-woman, child producing family unit.

Make no mistake about it, feminism is a cancer on society. Don't be fooled just because it may consume an unwanted wart here and there along the way.

Think well - see clearly. :)

PS: I recommend rereading steve66oh's post.

Talil and Martha
Martha, I only included you because you were part of the discussion, not to put you down.

Talil, my indictments of McD. were based on his writings - not just here, but in the past. I am presuming he means what he says, however, it is also possible and not unlikely that he says whatever will generate numerous responses, which look good on his record. My theory is that if you write emotionally-tinged nonsense you can't lose - half of the readers (smarter?)will be outraged at the stupidity of it and respond, the others (not so smart?)will suck it up and think it's brilliant and respond.

N/a has the most sensible reponse to all of this - once again, truly important issues go unmentioned as they are boring to most posters and wont' generate action. Why waste time on this kind of nonsense lite? Because it works.




Women who fuss about being feminists...
... are invariably supported by some closed system that has been built for them to pontifcate in largely by men. Gloria Steinem, for all her hot air and publications, has been supported from day #1 by wealthy men. Our higher education system, able to be as vast as it is because of American prosperity, shields these otherwise unemployable hot house flowers from some very harsh realities. This entire country, fought for and built up primarily by men, afford us all an economically viable and still relatively choice-filled country in which to speak as we wish and enjoy jobs that exist no where else inthe world.

The greatness and strength of men in no way diminishes the greatness and strength of women, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to deal with their childhood-based issues, because that is ALWAYS at the root of weird, over-the-top ideology like feminism as it stands today.

birdman
Your post made me laugh out loud! thanks for making my day!

feminism
Some really good posts on the subject, although I think some have misintepreted the author. Nowhere did I see him write women should stay barefoot and pregnant. Did I miss it? Feminism as a whole has run amuck and caused great damage to our society and the government in turn has exploited and profited off of it. How many women on this board are or know someone who has to work and raise children not because of choice but because of need? Sadly this exploitation started with a bunch spoiled women who only appreciated what God didn't give them instead of what he did.

Now back to our regularly scheduled
column by Kevin M.

Right on Kevin. This really got the minions of the Left in a tight knot.

NEWS FLASH!!!

This inscription was found on a fired clay tablet unearthed in a recent ‘archeological dig’ near the Dead Sea believed to be the site of ancient Sodom:

“NEWS FLASH!!! Heterosexuals have nothing to fear from homosexuals!”

Fortunately, Lot headed for cover just before the clay tablet was fired.

Feminist
When there are so many other important and relevant events going on in the world, why do people write this type of divisive nonsense? Since we are definitely an appearance society, I always look at the appearance of those who seem to hate others who don't fit into their personal molds of how to act.
When I look at Mr. McCullough, I can see someone who wasn't too popular with females or the males he wanted to be like and who were members of the "club" he waned to join. It's called having a lack of confidence in ones self.
Men who are self-assured, enjoy life and the women in their lives, without always having to worry about masculinity. These men, definitely, don't look like him in appearance and don't hang on to antiquated self-serving modes or gender hatred.
Thank God I was raised by a man who was self-assured and grew up among those who became self-assured.
Sharon

No, really, last post
To JoJo:
I suppose the point is that I figure we ought not to 'diss' anyone. I will be the LAST to claim perfection in this or any other area, but I think the desired state is to demolish another's flawed argument without attacking their character.
Of course, this is a gray area. Should we pretend a liar isn't a liar, or a bigot isn't a bigot? By no means. Sometimes it is critically important to communicate our perception of another person... but even then we can choose words that convey our opinion without excessive emotional loading. And even then the intent should be to do good or prevent harm, rather than to just hash someone up or smear them around others (I am NOT suggesting these were your reasons for 'dissing', I'm just voicing my ideal).
Is KM 'hostile, afraid, sanctimonious, bitter, and worst of all, ignorant and humorless'? I dunno. I don't know him well enough to make such statements with utter confidence; perhaps you do.
But I figured there is more than enough ground for criticism *of the article's content* without dragging the author's character into the discussion.
These are just a few words about my ideal of public debate. I don't mean to give offense or be critical of you, JoJo. Martha has already reminded me to be considerate! I would do well to listen :)

To Martha:
Thank you. Jesus says nothing about the ethics of military service; he didn't stop Peter from carrying a sword, though, and if he felt it necessary to speak against mil service, the perfect occasion would have been with the centurion whose servant He healed. I think I'm okay on this one.

Now, really, good night and God bless.

Herland
I was compelled to take a class in feminist indoctrination, I chose "Gender Issues in Literature". There, I was introduced to "Herland" by Charlotte Perkins Gillman, a fictional account of a female only utopia. I wrote a paper in the class comparing Herland to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", it was the most fun I had in college.

Medically, there are problems with the idea of generating sperm from female stem cells. Scientists have identified several disorders which are traceable to gender of the parent who contributed the genes. This relates to a process called "genomic imprinting", where genes from a father and a mother are necessary for proper expression of genetic traits. According to Wikipedia, "NOEY2 is located on chromosome 1 in humans. It is maternally imprinted. Researchers have found that its lack of expression relates to ovarian and breast cancers; in 41% of breast and ovarian cancers the protein transcribed by NOEY2 is not expressed. This leads scientists to believe that it is a tumor suppressor gene[4]- a gene that helps to prevent cancer by stopping uncontrolled cell growth. Therefore, if a person inherits both chromosomes from the mother, the gene will not be expressed and the individual is put at a greater risk for breast and ovarian cancer."

So, just one consequence of eliminating fathers in reproduction appears to be an increased risk of breast cancer.

Also, Kevin writes "Women like men - real men that is. Women love a man who will provide economic security for them.". But he misses the point of feminism's war on marriage. Modern, liberated women love a government which will provide economic security for them by marginalizing fathers to biweekly visitors in order to facilitate the collection and transfer of child support money. These women don't want ALL the support a father can provide his child, they're happier to push him away, exclude him from the family, and exchange his support for the (inferior) monetary support of a government issued check. Liberalism's war on marriage isn't gay marriage, it's guaranteed child support as a reward for filing no-fault divorce.

Tallil2long writes "The bottom line is: teach your daughters *by example* how men are supposed to treat women." I've been to divorce court, I was drug there involuntarily by a spouse looking for the security of monthly support checks instead of the insecurity of the "for better or worse" she had with me. (My risk of losing a job to downsizing, job export, whatever, is unchanged; her risk of losing money if I lose a job is eliminated. F.B.O.W. marriage can't compete with government guaranteed security) As a result, my son is learning by example how men are supposed to treat women and children - he's learning that a "good father" is one who sends the support check on time.

(not sending a support check because you're still married? You're obviously not a "good father" as liberalism and feminism define it)

The creation of sperm from stem cells is unnecessary, feminism has already so completely monopolized parental rights in America that if feminists ever decided they needed bulk quantities of sperm, the sole custodial mothers among them could simply have it harvested from their sons. Today's NCP fathers could do nothing to prevent this, and after a couple of generations of donor conception and gender selective abortion, there won't be any fathers left to object.

Equal protection of fundamental parental rights is the primary, defining social issue of our time, which is why feminists write so strenuously against equality for fathers. But they don't fear men - they feel they've already beaten them.

It's okay, JoJo...
I don't *think* I commented on any of your posts.

And I don't have a problem with being disturbed with KM's articles. They are without question overfocused on one issue, reactive, unreliable, and lacking in substantiation. I read his writing out of curiosity and to see who will post. I was obviously most impressed with Tallil2long's respectful and logical approach. I found it encouraging.

I've lived a similar life to yours and successfully avoided the same type of man, while staying dramatically in love with my first and last husband. :)

Martha

Whos afraid of feminists?
If Kevin doesn't like feminists, let him date demure women from Falwell College. Leave the feminists (the 90% who are heterosexual) to real men with enough self esteem not be threatened by independence.

Just can't stop myself! In response to
To MrsV:
I knew the way I expressed myself was intended as a snub. If I can't repent of doing wrong (that is, admit it was wrong and turn away from it), then what kind of Christian am I?
Jesus could chase the moneychangers out of the temple, and shout Hypocrites! to the Pharisees, without sin. I'm not the Son of Man: I think maybe a meeker approach is indicated for me. Thank you for your encouragement, but I was right to accept Martha's censure for that comment.

To Will:
I, too have seen beautiful, thoughtful children raised by single mothers. But those children could have still profited from the presence of a loving father!
I, too, have seen marriages that were so awful that the Dad walking out seemed a blessing. But that is not an indictment against marriage! It is one more evidence that we with our fallen natures can make even the best thing a sordid failure when we make bad or premature decisions, allow jealousy or envy or resentment to claim us, or just don't try to be kind and loving spouses.
The cure for what ails marriage is to give careful thought and prayer before entering it; to seek counsel and aid while in it; and to always try very hard to give to the other more than one even expects to receive in return (only to find that you can't outgive your spouse, because he or she will recognize and respond to your giving).
Jesus said that Moses only conceded provision for divorce because of the hardness of our hearts; but in truth without hard hearts we wouldn't NEED provision for divorce.

Tail2long, Martha, etc.
I dissed KM because his column is full of stupid generalities, misinformation, and not a little creepy.

Why is he so concerned about sex toys?

McDonough has whipped up an ill-informed, silly picture of "feminists" (which has no single, precise meaning) because he thrives on tsk-tsk aint-it-awful sermons that conjure up the poor-me victimiologies that are the currency of ideologues.

I have been a "feminist" for years - I have a happy, fullfilled marriage to the one man, raised two boys who have grown up to be successful husbands and fathers, and as for asserting that "men are not important in (my) life", I can say with absolute enthusiasm that the only kind of man I have successfully avoided all these years are the ones like KM.

raised a Mennonite pacifist,
I must say that TH has helped me better appreciate the honorable nature of so many in the military. (It's not like my parents *ever* denigrated any military members, but the "lifestyle" was considered a sin...)

God bless you, Sgt. Anderson!

Martha

Pauc
I just saw one of your posts on another thread, so I know your aim is to mock conservatives by holding up a mirror to their often questionable views. Your other post was quite funny, by the way, as I responded there.

KEEP IT UP.

To Martha, and to all
Well, I think your response is the most thoughtful I have ever seen. I certainly agree with your point about 'averages'. I have known some women with many stereotypically male characteristics, and vice versa.
Nonetheless, even for those individuals, I cannot quite credit them with being fully-interchangeable stand-ins for a person of the opposite sex, but I wouldn't wish to attempt to browbeat anyone into agreeing with me. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! Time, as they say, will tell.
It has been a pleasure discussing these matters with you, and I hope to do so again in the future.


To all:
I have enjoyed our discussions, but it is 11:11PM (or 2311L, or 1841Z) here in Afghanistan, and I really need to go crash.
God bless you all, and good night.
-SGT Anderson

Tallil2long You Were Right Don't Demure!
Tallil2long writes:

"In response to Mrs V I can clarify where I went wrong in my response to slacker.
First and foremost, my wording suggested that he misunderstood some things about relationships, and by linking that to the question of whether he was married, implied that his own supposed relationship was somehow messed up.
Did I REALLY intend it that strongly? Not really, but I frankly did intend a snub. Regardless of the morality of his statements about KM, I was wrong to throw in a comment just to be snide."

I saw your reply to slacker, which I liked, and appreciated!

I think you are being overly critical of your own words, as you made an EXTREMELY insightful point there!

Are we even talking about a person who knows whence he speaks when it comes to male-female relationships? (Anyone can say they are, and can lie on here, really) But what a person ADVOCATES often speaks about their lifestyle, and what they seek.

Moreover, you have a gift of seeing Truth in a person's argument, and a gift of logical analysis, at least in the reply I posted that you made to Slacker, here.

I would stop demurring.

Don't demure!

Don't worry about pleasing people, because seeing and knowing Truth is a gift! Saying it plain is special!

I have not had time to see your other posts, but it is important to stay strong in what you share and see.

This is not about attacks on personalities, but about calling the things as they are, true, false, or indifferent.

There are too many people writing here that are just confused, and weak in their ideas and assertions. So many are taking the path of least resistance, and it hurts them, they buy lies this way.

If God gave you an ability to clearly see truth and take it apart from lie, and tell people this Truth, then to demure is to almost say you were wrong.

And isn't that kind of a sin?

(Keep in mind, I have not seen your other posts, so I may not fully agree with all you've had to say, but in that post to slacker, I did)

You were right!

Don't demure!

a little compliment doesn't hurt...
Tallil2long writes:

Nonetheless, I don't want to crusade about it. I think he correct way to address the issue is on a personal level, by treating homosexuals like we should treat every one else: as walking, talking examples of God's grace.

Martha writes:

There ya go. I knew there was a really good reason my gut liked you from the start.

You just can't argue with that: "walking, talking examples of God's grace," like everyone else. If we all lived with that mindset...well...

Mrs V and Tallil2long
"Fourth, you acknowledge that one or two articles mention the utility of this technology to lesbians.This technique,like artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, will inevitably be used by those who want to cut men out of the cycle.As it has been in the past, so will it be in"

As I mentioned earlier, there can be no question whatever that if science can be used to "cut men out of the cycle",it can be used to do the same in regard to women.If stem cells can be induced to form sperm cells,they can with certainty,be induced to forming eggs,placental cells(for an artificial womb),or whatever type of adult/fully differentiated cell you like.It is commonly believed that since they have the womb,women are more indispensable,and in an evolutionary and historical sense,this is certainly true.That would no longer be the case however,probably within a decade or two.Of course,we all know there is a world of difference between being capable of doing something and actually doing it.

In response to Will, Mrs V, and AudiR10
To Will:
The groups that got the most accomplished owed much of their success to the fact that they kept 'being in your face' in perspective.
Even brutal honesty wins people over, but inaccurate characterizations and hateful words drive away would-be supporters.

To Mrs V:
In all honesty, AudiR10 used apes as an example; she need not have intended an slight against men...

To AudiR10:
It certainly *sounded* like your example intended a slight against men!
Nonetheless, I am not personally offended. I'm kinda hairy, but hardly a monkey :)

All Men and Acts Not Equal
will writes:

"All are Created Equal Sometimes society NEEDS groups like feminists or "gay rights" groups or individuals like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks to simply CHANGE inequality in society.
Feminists in the late 1800's & early 1900's are responsible for women getting the right to vote.
Modern gay rights groups are (in part) responsible for changing state & federal laws ("Lawrence v. Texas", Supreme Court, 2003) as well as public perception.
Rosa Parks' act of defiance was (in part) responsible for galvanizing the message of the nascent modern civil rights movement.
Each of these groups has been reviled. Each have, can & will overcome this contemptuousness. Sometimes you need that "in your face" group or individual to kick-start social progress movements."

First of all, an ex-Black can NEVER be found, but there are ex-gays.

Next, homosexuals have dominated, and intimidated the courts, and media, indeed they have AMBUSHED them to try and get their way.

For them to try and hyjack REAL civil rights movements, and blend them in with gays ins insane.

For them to drag Femanism to the level it has where it is no more about basic rights for women, but an agenda WHICH HURTS MEN And women, society and people, is also a dishonest thing.

Here is what I said to ~KMC in an email not long ago, regarding differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, as people:

" homosexuality is NOT the same as heterosexuality, when there is no immorality involved. Peter Pace only alluded to heterosexuals when they have an immorality issue, as in adultery. But heterosexuals are the standard, indeed they are more than a majority, they are God's plan. This is not to say homosexuals do not deserve life, or any other normal human rights in the lives they live, except when it comes to the deleterious and damaging effects of their shared, or acted upon, sexuality."

And homosexuals have used threats, and slanders of every form to try to manipulate leaders in our day, and throw their agenda down on American's and those abroad. Even on here..

All men are made by their Creator to have life, their liberty ends when you harm ours, and a pursuit of happiness is not the same as having your own way.

I think the political gays will have to be thinking about that some day.

As it is they won't see what I have to say..

They are too busy futzing with writing and producing anti-Christian brainwash propaganda on ABC and NBC!

Equality in God's eyes does not mean HE made all to have the SAME rights.

Think about it..


gender/sex differences and gay parents
Tallil2long's second response to Martha

Martha writes:
"The same experiment you describe is one that I would propose you have no more evidence to fear than I have evidence not to fear."

Tallil2long writes:
I can't agree with you on this one. For one thing, men and women were clearly created (or evolved) to complement one another, particularly in childrearing. I submit that going against Mother Nature (or God) in this way would put children in homosexual households at grave disadvantage. Not because their parents fail to love them or seek their best interest, but because men and women ain't made (or evolved) exactly the same.

I know I'm going to rile some people up with that statement, and I mean no insult. However, if evolution (or creation) was so very strong an engine, we ignore the way it has molded us at our peril.

Martha, do you believe that your unique qualities as a woman could be dispensed with and your children raised as well without them? For equivalence of male and female characteristics appears to me to be implicit in the claim that homosexuals should have all the rights (including adoption, forming households, etc) currently reserved to heterosexuals.

I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on this.


Martha writes:
Thank you, Tallil2long, I am honored. I'm limited, because I really shouldn't post much today, due to my schedule this coming week, but I'll give it my best, hopefully :) brief shot.

To begin with, you should know that I am an artist and, as such, have probably had more than my share of opportunities to know people with minority sexual orientations and gender expressions and experiences.

On top of that, my husband and I, while heterosexual and mostly typical of men and women, have some "reverse" skills. That is, I would trust my husband for certain traditional "mothering" skills as much or more than I would trust myself, and vice versa. Mostly, we're traditional, but I can definitely relate to diversity within genders.

Secondly, I am not one to be persuaded by biblical arguments, because of how the bible has been used inaccurately in the past, for one. I know: you did not suggest that I should be. Just clarifying for others who might read.

As to your specific questions:
"men and women ain't made (or evolved) exactly the same"

I truly agree. I was most disappointed by L. Summers' treatment at Harvard. Of course we should be able to discuss male and female differences, _on average_. The key, for me, is "on average." My husband and I, while mostly traditional, do not take all the typical roles. My friends who were born with truly androgenous physical features, my friends who _feel_ like the opposite gender, and my friends who are gay all have characteristics that, I think, would truly support the healthy development of children. Were you to meet and get to know them, I honestly don't think you would disagree. Essentially, and without time for more specific examples, my belief is based on the fact that I think we can safely leave it up to individuals. We take just as many chances with the autonomy we grant heterosexual couples, I believe. That's my perspective from working in the public school system, anyway.

Tallil2long writes:
Martha, do you believe that your unique qualities as a woman could be dispensed with and your children raised as well without them? For equivalence of male and female characteristics appears to me to be implicit in the claim that homosexuals should have all the rights (including adoption, forming households, etc) currently reserved to heterosexuals.

Martha writes:
I suppose I've already basically answered this as well as I can in a short space of time. I think that my husband and I deviated somewhat from the standard arrangement (in some areas) so I don't really see equal rights for gay couples to be based on the assumption of the equivalence of male and female characteristics.

I guess part of that is just based on my anecdotal experience. Most of my gay male friends are just darn good "mothers." Perhaps, more importantly, they are way better mothers than *some* of the ones who abandoned the children my friends would adopt. (Please note that I'm NOT saying that all children up for adoption have been abandoned!!! I'm speaking about specific cases.) And really, the foster system out there is not looking so abundantly capable.

Most gay people would tell you that they are not abandoning their natural design at all, and many would explain that they tried to do so for many painful and destructive years. I also think the evidence clearly demonstrates that children raised by gay couples, so far, have at least as positive an outome as those raised in traditional families -- and are no more likely to be gay than their traditional family counterparts.

The flip question is: Do you think that we should remove children from single-parent homes because that is not considered ideal? Or bar unmarried people from adopting children?

But do I treasure the years when I was the primary caregiver for my young children? Oh, my, yes!! Will I ever get over the bonding we experienced during breast-feeding and rocking and diaper-changes? Oh, my, no!! I certainly felt all the traditional surges of "mother instinct" and I believe that my children benefitted immensely from it.

I just trust my gay friends as much as I trust my straight friends to provide an adequate and loving environment -- and, from what I've seen, the kids turn out great!

That's my best answer, for now. I'll even back up and say that I can honestly understand how people of good conscience and an open mind could wonder about the safety of "the experiment."

So far, though, I think the evidence stands strongly in favor of its success.

All the best to you and your family,
Martha






In response to Paucoremhominem
Some feminists approach your description. However, you cannot possibly know all women who describe themselves as feminists, so your characterization cannot be appropriate.
It is called stereotyping, and it is wrong AND counterproductive.
The same goes for your characterization of gays. I have known several. Most were neither hateful, compulsive liars, nor particularly militant.
I agree that the two 'masterpieces' you describe are vile. However, I didn't notice that every liberal in the U.S. had a part in creating them.

Look, I'm not about to hammer presumed liberals for stereotyping and hyperbole, then give a pass to a conservative. If you want to further a cause, you'll do much better with accuracy and civility. And it will be better for your own soul to view people as individual human beings, whether each be good or bad, rather than faceless abstractions.

Slacker and GEO
Your comments are very telling.You expound ad nauseum upon what KSM wrote,diving headlong into mere flights of fancy and your own imaginings and interpretations.What you perhaps don't realize is that this reveals much more about you than anyone else.Your puny little brain,not Mccullough's,is connecting dots of information.YOUR mind is the one filling in the blanks.

It is a textbook case of the psychological defense mechanism of projection- you attribute the ego-discordant parts of your psyche onto others.Thus KSM doesn't appear nearly as fixated on homosexuality and "machoness" as you.YOU are the one who paears insecure and uncertain of his own competence and manliness.

So Femanists Act Like Apes.. See Men As.
AudiR10 wrote:

"We don't FEAR men We just don't need one around the house all the time (or around the office either, as far as that goes). To say that since I don't have a man around my house I must therefore "fear" men is, um, wishful thinking. I like monkeys, but I don't want one of my own. If I want to see monkeys, I know where to go and look at them. Then I go home. To a house without monkeys."


Therefore, AudiR10 sees men as apes.

Strike one for the problem with a Fe-manist mindset.

Strike one for Evil-ution.

If I see myself as an ape's ancestor, I am "free" to act all ape.

Fortunately, we are not a monkey's aunt, or uncle..

There's much to be said for the Truth, gained only from a Biblical perspective.

That is something you'll NEVER get on NBC..

either..


To Martha
Oh, quite all right. I zinged slacker, and shouldn't have. The fact that I was (and am) convinced that he misred or mischaracterized portions of KM's article, and needlessly insulted the author, doesn't give me the right to be uncivil.
Actually, much of these conversations typify the *right* way to do public debate.

As for my 'concern over the gay thing', I think there are some very real dangers in regarding men and women as interchangeable. I don't think we're made the same and trying to force us into each other's molds is harmful, IMHO. Nonetheless, I don't want to crusade about it. I think he correct way to address the issue is on a personal level, by treating homosexuals like we should treat every one else: as walking, talking examples of God's grace.

Babies and bathhouse water ...
Hello Tallil2long,

I think some sort of domestic partnership law could be good for society because it would likely encourage more homo-couples to build stable, committed, long term monogamous relationships. But, as you state, it would be a grave mistake to go mindlessly further and try to elevate homo-unions to traditional marriage.

The state sanctions and protects traditional marriage primarily to promote the best interests of children to be raised by their biological mothers and fathers. To purposefully or knowingly conceive and launch a child into life with anything less is an extreme act of selfishness and is tantamount to child abuse. Although single-mothers-by-choice are actually a much greater danger to civil society in this regard, harm is also done by homo-couples that choose for one partner to produce a child to be raised by the couple.

Think of the ache of longing of the sons or daughters of single mothers who grow up seeing their friends receive the daily love, guidance and wisdom of a father and wondering why they had to be so different and what their own fathers might have been like. Would you that the law allow that your son have been purposefully denied the love of a father (or mother)? I know I wouldn't. It is important to send this clear message to our own sons and daughters (regardless of sexual orientation) so that their pursuit of their life's wants is tempered with a respect for the rights of others, especially the most helpless and innocent among us, our children. As much as I applaud the sacrifice of homo-couples who adopt and lovingly raise the otherwise unadoptable, I deplore the selfishness of homo-couples who would willfully create a child doomed from the get-go to never know and be loved by both its mother and father. Equating homo-unions to marriage would give just this sort of destructive, narcissistic behavior the official stamp of approval.

Traditional marriage institutionalizes a natural order that has successfully served mankind throughout civilized human society. To be honest, we know next to nothing about the effects of homo-marriage and same-sex parenting on children. However, that adoptive children and the children of single motherhood often crave knowledge of and connection to both their natural parents is an established fact.

We need only look to the core of our most basic instincts to know that children generally crave the love, guidance and life's example that only a mother and a father can best provide. Yes, some traditional parents will not live up to that potential, but the failure of individuals is neither reason nor justification to purposefully create children to be raised without their own natural (married to each other) mothers and fathers.

This common sense concern for society's children is why it will alway be counter to the state's interests to sanction and/or equate homo-unions to marriage. Yes, this issue is indeed about rights - the rights of innocent and otherwise helpless children not to be sacrificed as play doll/pets on the alter of self-serving narcissism.

The idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive and equally necessary contributions to make to the rearing of a child is absurd on its face. Without hard evidence to the contrary (and there is none), mainstream American will never be ready to throw children out with the same-sex bathhouse water.

Think well - see clearly.

"Feminism" - an Oxymoron
One word oxymorons:

1. "feminist" - feminists are male wannabes without a hint of femininity about them. They're ball-busters who promote lesbianism, abortion, and hate, but not necessarily in that order.

2. "art" - "Pi$$ Christ" is not, repeat not "art." It is hatred of Christianity by the Left. "Feces Spattered Madonna" is not, repeat not "art." It is hatred of Christianity and those evil "neocons" by the "compassionate" and "tolerant" left.

3. "gay" - Homosexuals are militant. They are hateful. They demand the "right" to continue infecting others without divulging their deadly diseases under the guise of "privacy." They are pathological liars, claiming above all that homosexuality is "genetic" and that they number 10% of the population.

In fact, medical studies have demonstrated that young males raped by homosexuals have up to 7 times the likelihood of becoming homosexuals themselves. This would not be demonstrable if genetics were the cause of sexual perversion.

Calling things like they really are is anathema to liberals. They can call you a "fascist" and a "Nazi" but if you call them "liberals" or otherwise describe reality, they will cry and call you even more hateful names.

Evil is like that.

In response to Mrs V
I can clarify where I went wrong in my response to slacker.
First and foremost, my wording suggested that he misunderstood some things about relationships, and by linking that to the question of whether he was married, implied that his own supposed relationship was somehow messed up.
Did I REALLY intend it that strongly? Not really, but I frankly did intend a snub. Regardless of the morality of his statements about KM, I was wrong to throw in a comment just to be snide.

Sorry Tallil2long..Just Too Good..
Talli2long, that reply you originally sent to slacker was just too good. I hope you don't mind, I re posted it. Great analysis! SO true!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tallil2long writes: Sunday, April, 15, 2007 11:26 AM


"In response to slacker
First, you shot your credibility up front by stooping to character attack. Even the experts need lengthy interviews to determine a person's emotional/mental condition. Clearly, you cannot know the truth of your claims. Stooping to insult by calling the author 'homophobic' or 'perverted' is equally childish and ignorant. The author clearly disapproves of homosexuality, but one can disapprove something without being phobic about it.

Second, the author never states that men and women cannot live without each other. This implication of yours is a strawman. The author DID contend that men have a vital role in society, and that men and women are infinitely better off WITH one another (in proper relationship) than without.

Third, the author never suggests that a man clip the wings of his wife, or make her totally dependent on him. You invented that so you would have another strawman to burn. I wonder: are you in a committed marital relationship? If you were, you would understand the author's true point: we DO depend on one another for so very much.

Fourth, you acknowledge that one or two articles mention the utility of this technology to lesbians. This technique, like artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, will inevitably be used by those who want to cut men out of the cycle. As it has been in the past, so will it be in the future.

Finally, regardless of what homosexuals are out to achieve, no society EVER in the history of the world has placed homosexuality in the position of total legitimacy now being sought in the United States... except perhaps recently in some Scandinavian nations. Therefore, you have absolutely no evidence that doing such a thing will be harmless to the country. This is a vast experiment which, frankly, could have enormous negative consequences unforseen to you or anyone else."

We don't FEAR men
We just don't need one around the house all the time (or around the office either, as far as that goes). To say that since I don't have a man around my house I must therefore "fear" men is, um, wishful thinking.

I like monkeys, but I don't want one of my own. If I want to see monkeys, I know where to go and look at them. Then I go home. To a house without monkeys.

In response to slacker
I think that by calling KM a pervert, you did go over the top. If you have a different view, then there it is. Personally, I think the articulation of your strongly held opinion would be better served by dispensing with name calling. Nevertheless, I see no use in dwelling on it. Let us set it aside.

As for hyperbole, I think you are correct about KM's article. Nonetheless, I think you badly misunderstood portions of his article, as I pointed out (harshly) in my previous response to you.
I think there is reason to believe that Geo and JoJo mistook some things in there too.

And I suppose here is the point I'd wish to make. KM's hyperbole virtually guaranteed that people responded to him in anger, which facilitates misunderstanding. For instance,responding to his hyperbole, you failed to realize that he didn't argue the fact that women CAN achieve "economic provision, physical protection, or to even achieve sexual orgasm". He simply opined that the emphasis on those facts leads to a mistaken conclusion that men and women are dispensable one to the other. In like manner, I submit that the hyperbole of your response facilitated misunderstanding or misreading of your post.

Enjoy your time with your family. I'm stuck for a while at Bagram :(

and my apologies back to Tallil2long
Gosh, I was just wishing I hadn't responded so strongly and wondering how to backpedal when you post came in. As I doublechecked what we all wrote, I think I was off-base by a longshot. I don't think you actually pounced. I just wasn't convinced that your treatment of slacker's post was really accurate. I shouldn't try posting while I'm working hard on something else.

You're obviously quite civil and one very good example of how truly gentlemanly behavior is a far cry from the disrespectful tone that some men seem to think is necessary for manhood. I realize that I am terribly spoiled by living with the greatest man on earth, but I never seem to get over my disappointment with those men *and* women who can't focus on the positive aspects of the opposite sex. It's always a real treat to encounter examples of other secure men out there.

I don't get your concern over the gay thing, but that's just a simple difference of opinion, afaic.

Thanks for a *very* polite and generous response!

Martha

Capable Does Not Mean Valid..
Talli2long, I just noticed your
"In response to Slacker" reply here, and I am, for the most part, in agreement with it. I am not, however, understanding -or seeing- where you have made rude comments to this person. (Maybe I am missing something, or just not seeing it, but your replies to him seemed valid and right on).

I have been visiting here quite a few months, and have seen the things that Slacker has written here. From his communiques, I can see he makes efforts to be quite convincing, and is ardent in trying to be persuasive as he speaks. Indeed, when it comes to writing, he may even have a flair.

My concern, however, is not with a person's conviction, nor