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.

But the question that came to mind was - "why?"

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?

Surely the feminists know that for every talk-radio host who refers to women as "nappy-headed hos" that there are more than a dozen, who are sincerely, fall down head over heels in love with their wives. Surely the feminists can see that while there are some public figures like Barack Obama who are forced to nuance why they appear with hip-hop icons like Ludicrous who prefer to think of women as "hos" and "bitches", that there are others like Dr. James Dobson who have advocated for the deep respect women deserve from the culture and society.

It has to be obvious to the angry feminists today that in fact the happiest women in America are those who have a caring, life giving, spiritual, emotional, and physical relationship with a man they are married to.

Though the feminists will never admit it, real women know the score. When we talked about the possibility of the "all female conception" on my radio show this week - not one phone call came in support of such a perverse outlook.

The feminist jig is up. 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.

The ideas of artificial sperm and an all female universe actually horrify normal women - and despite what the media may say - that's never going to change.

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.

Wow Tamalak
Your grasp of the actual substance of the article is stunning...

Picture
Nice picture of Jane Fonda. She's so white, she looks like a zombie.

As for the article, if it contained any facts, I'd address them. As it is, just another Kevin McCullough piece. Not as fun as the one that predicted the destruction of Israel, though. That was classic.

Despite your derision, Tamalak:
That last one was pretty funny. Blame a college sense of humor, or too many flashbacks to the endless Chuck Norris jokes.

Regarding substance:

McCullough is refering to the group of feminist "thought" (and I'm being very loose with the term) called lesbian feminism, the same brand of crazy morons that make analogies as useful to mankind as fish are to bicycles.

The prospect of this crap is frightening, if only because there are already insane ideologues in place who think men are a relic from the past. I can take solace in the fact they will never succeed though: if those chicks tried any stupid crap like that, you can bet your rear a bunch of "angry, violent" men would be tearing down those facilities through either legal or lethal force. These man-hating psychos can't take all of us.

McCullough overpaints the picture, maybe
But hey, who doesn't? Before critizing him for hyperbole, go see what people are writing for Huffpost.
The truth is that there are a tiny fraction of women who advocate the sort of man-free lifestyle McCullough describes. Those few WILL screw up quite a few abused, confused, troubled women. The great majority of women will never be tempted to buy into the full program. And frankly, very many of the women who DO swallow that hook will eventually see the unwisdom of their philosophy and see their way clear.

The bottom line is: teach your daughters *by example* how men are supposed to treat women. I open the door for my wife. I help her around the house. I consult her on every decision I make personally, and we make joint decisions... well, jointly. We have an understanding that I am the head of the family, but I virtually never feel the need to exert that authority, since a couple working together as a team can iron out virtually every disagreement.
Girls who see a good marriage in action very rarely fall for anything less. I suppose the same is true of boys but, having raised three daughters, I have only my own childhood experience on which to fall back!

Do some in the media
really think that they will be spared when there is a major islamo facist push or when men are officially relegated to second place status and/or not needed? They have become usefull idiots to these differnet factions. They will become like unto John McCaon while he was trashing Bush, trashing the first amendment and deviding the party. Celebrated while usefull. But as John has learned your fickle friends will turn on you in a heart beat now when he needs them the most because he no longer advances their agenda.


Mr. McCullough
"The feminist jig is up. 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."

Your best paragraph ever. Amen to it! Real women want what is in that paragraph. Why a woman would not want this is beyond me and makes no sense.


http://peppermintsplace.townhall.com
Chapter 13 of my diary is on my blog for those who are reading it.

scary women..
(Happily shocked I am able to post here now, as was not the case for the last few days.. )

This IS a scary story, but not because there's any future in it-in terms of these women taking over society, as it were. I know Kevin has not supplied the "facts" for some, but the total and absolute brainwashing, (if one can call that washing) efforts to promote homosexuality, and advocating it, the media these days, has been replete.

Just the other night my Husband and I were watching a special on PBS, two women boxers. I kept remarking how they seemed to really be trying to look like boys! Their hair was chopped off, and they seemed to be making it their goal to really get into some kind of masculine feel with it.

As I mentioned that, the show shared that these gals were "partners", and then panned to one standing over the other, flexing a very -trying-to-be-boyish muscle, and attempting a guy-like pose. I have to say seeing these girls was sad. Immediately, the show reverted into them as a "couple", and we turned it off right away. (Much as we enjoy so much on PBS, they are BIG supporters of gay agendas, and keep it that way. So no money to them from our home.)

I am sorry that hard times with men, or just something in someone's life or upbringing has them confused or so upset with themselves, others, their lives, that their God-given orientation is beyond them.

I know, and it's common known fact that "Women's Studies" is code for Lesbianism and Fe-manism, so these folks know what they are doing. In fact, anyone with eyes to see can see that Media and Academia walk hand in hand. These days it's just worse.

The tragedy is that so many women today are ignorant of this, and persist in tearing down the walls of their own domain. I'm not perfect, but I thank God, by His grace, I can make the distinction.

Keep in mind, the same folks who push the "L" word, are the ones who constantly criticize Christians on tv shows, and NO ONE says a WORD about this kind of -true- bigotry.

Jokes can be made, but the facts remain, society has constantly resorted to the tired, dogeared and sinful theme of naive women dumping on and abusing their men. Or just as bad, or worse, throwing off interest in them altogether.

The story in this article just the fruits of the "worse" to which a bad thing can go.

Do some in the media
really believe that when the islamo facists put on a strong surge or women take over and men are officially relaged to second class status that they will be spared? These usefull idots won't know what hit them.

When John McCain was trashing Bush, trashing the first amendment. working with Kennedy and deviding the party he was the golden boy who got as much face time and good coverage as he wanted. He even had the title of renegade. Now that the media is backing some body else he has become a forgotten has been. No longer the renegade he is just another has been running for president.

Gentlemen in the MSM. Wake up and smell the coffee because if the feminists get their way your job will be selling the papers they controll.

Tallil2long
Do you have any male friends like yourself? :-)

Fie
These kind of sensational articles mentioned by NcCullough are really in the genre of science fiction, not a remotely possible reality. It just gives some perverse satisfaction to the man-hating women out there, who are few in number indeed. Something for them to fantasize about. Some years ago there was some talk of the Y chromosome being "unstable" and that in a few thousand years would become mutated out of existence. Exactly how the species could continue in this scenario the authors did not speculate. Half-baked science.

Obviously, if sperm cells can be generated from stem cells, so can eggs- it is only a matter of finding the right growth factors and chemical milieu. An artificial womb would be relatively easy to create. Thus, women too would become irrelevant. No sane individual would pursue this line of investigation because what kind of man would want to live in an all-male world? No one I know. What a dull and insipid existence it would be. In any case it could not function properly. The same would be true of an all-female society. It could not possibly function and would also result in a society in which nobody would want to live.

Men and women need and complement each other, by design as I believe. We were created not as self-sufficient by ourselves but as a mutually dependent pair- one half cannot exist without the other complementary half. This is as it should be as always will be.

In response to Peppermint
None single, I'm afraid. I'm in the Army, where I try to teach guys to be decent adults. My substitute for having sons... :)

Tallil2long
Well, you show them a good role model of yourself and they will turn out just fine.

I was impressed with your post and that you sound like such a good husband. What woman wouldn't want that in her life? :-)

Men as Pets
As a woman, I can honestly tell you that I prefer my men with some meaningful measure of testoserone. Manly men. I like 'em.

It take some work to develop a great relationship because of the naturally different bents of men and women, but the rewards tend to be commensurate with the effort. Mm-mm.

The wussy metro guys seem to have less testosterone. They're nice to have around, but when they take a stand, they sound like whiney chicks.

The metros are the unnecessary ones. If you like 'em, fine, but they're more like...pets: optional.

Friendship, yeah. Electricity, no. Having a bunch of whiney men chicks around is as bad as a hen party. I really don't like those.

Well, the feminists who feel that "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" are bent on creating a world with fewer and fewer men (let's cast the metros into the chick category for now).

Fewer men will naturally place a premium on them. So feminism will raise the value of men because of their scarcity.

Brilliant. 'Way to give men more power.


Tamalak
Du you know how to make a joke that is actually funny?

Tamalak goes Imus on us...
with her crack about "nun(s) in a small convent in Tuscany giving birth" blah blah blah.

Even I, an atheist, find Tamalak's remark to be most offensive, very deplorable, and quite unfunny.

Thanks Kevin
Thank you Kevin for the good article. I am 32 and this feminist crap has been taught since I could remember. My feminist aunt always kept quoting that gloria steinem saying "women need men like a fish needs a bicycle." I always wondered why she felt men were so useless. I looked at her infrequent dating habits and it always was that she picked out jerks. No wonder she felt that way, but it was HER own fault. I think her hatred of men boiled down to the fact that she hated herself.
I firmly believe that most of the crap that women go through today are results of thier own bungling-not of oppressive males. Women really do have a lot of power, they just don't realize it or are unwilling to show it in a productive way or in making wise choices for themselves.

The feminist movement was started by
ugly broads who couldn't get a date on Saturday night with a gun. Or if they succeeded with one gave us the term Saturday night special rather than .38 special.
In any event, it gathered up all the wierd wall-flowers and assorted lesbos and evolved into the thing we see today on shows like the view.
Meanwhile the real ladies out there, the ones who make it rewarding to be a man, who are the reason we want to come home of an evening, who provide interesting and intelligent conversation and company and can sustain it for, in my case 20 years,are out there. But very rare, you only find them in conservative environments. I am looking to clone mine and make gazillions on Ebay.

Try as they might,
libs, feminists, etc cannot repeal the laws of nature. Perhaps they will tinker successfully with test tubes and sidestep biology, but will that change God's design in any meaningful way? Not at all. Each attempt is merely an exercise that illustrates the meaninglessness of their existence.

my 2 cents
Criticizing McCullough for hyperbole is like criticizing him for breathing. (Especially after reading George Will's piece on Jackie Robinson.)

Tamalak - You rule on this one. Outstanding post.

2 more cents
I'd like to see McCullough and David Limbaugh and Doug Giles on a desert island together.

And left there

In response to Geo
It is very frequently a mistake to assume that the reason a person disapproves of something is because the person fears it. I disapprove of obscene rap, but I don't flee in panic when I hear it.
On the other hand, it is a very common smear tactic to insinuate that a person with whom one disagrees is phobic. I trust that is not your game, here.

A little aside for Seawolf: rejection is hurtful. There is some truth, I think, to the notion that the perpetually rejected or abused start radical counter-cultures like the one being discussed. Perhaps it is not so civil to dwell on peoples' misfortunes publicly?

In response to Uncle Max
McCullough expressed his opinion, one with which you clearly do not agree. Fair enough.
However, Tamalak discarded any pretense of honest discussion and stooped to contemptuous treatment and ridicule. That is clearly counterproductive (you won't win over any hearts and minds acting like THAT), and ruinous to civil debate.
Why would you congratulate her on this 'achievement'?

In response to RJLigier
It's still the same STD regardless of what you call it.
But here's how to fight ALL STD's, regardless of name: teach children that the only CERTAIN way to avoid STDs is to abstain from sex until marriage, stay faithful to one's spouse, and stay together for life.
There. Done.

reproductive research
These types of "feminists" will not be satisfied until researchers can develop parthenogenesis in humans.

Suicidal philosophy
Radical feminism as we know it will be "fixed" by Islam in a hurray when the Muslims, who are producing lots of children, even a couple extra for bombs, take over. These childless man haters will have nothing to hold on to but their regrets.

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you
But not at what KMC and his band of fools obsess over in this article.

What shocks me is the appalling, arrogant ignorance of KMC.

Ok, I am saying this with tongue somewhat in cheek. I know KMC's obsessesion over homosexuality knows no bounds. The thought that some woman somewhere might be able to exist, much less thrive, without a man at the center of her life to whom she attributes all her ability to survive constantly drives him into a frenzy. This can ONLY be based on a deeply burried self doubt of his own manhood. This constant macho posturing is always associated with someone surpressing something very dark and fearful in themselves.

Only KMC can tell us what this is in himself, but it will require more courage for self examination than he has ever exhibited. Perhaps with a little humility and prayer to his god he can muster that courage. Let us hope.

The recent news that science has shown it may be possible to separate sexuality completely from reproduction probably drives him into a pure frenzy. Take a deep breath, KMC dittoheads. As with all science and technology, this advance advance will not lead to the dystopia KMC wants you to fear.

I googled the research KMC based this article on. You can too. The research is clearly being reported in a balanced fashion by the MSM. Of dozens of articles describing the research, nearly all focus on the facts and that the possibility of benefit after years more research to infertile men or men who must undergo radiation or chemotherapy for cancer. This is the basic promise and application of this research.

Only one or two articles talk much about the possibility for impregnating lesbians without men. And sure, some day this may be accomplished and there is nothing we can do to stop it. But of course this is the ONLY thing that registers in the dark homophobic depths of KMC's perverted brain.

And he asserts this has been somehow pounced on by all feminists without providing us with as much as a single reference or name of a single feminist who has supposedly done this pouncing. I couldn't find one!

The real surprising thing is that KMC doesn't already know that

"... women don't need men for economic provision, physical protection, or to even achieve sexual orgasm."

Maybe he also doesn't know it is possible for MEN to provide for themselves economically and protect themselves or achieve orgasm by themselves too!!!

Is KMC for real? Or is he just some bad comic or ignorant buffoon the religious right puts up on TH to make the religious right look like a pack of clowns. Maybe TH thinks every week contains April Fools day?

Of course, men can live without women! And women can live without men! They can prosper economically and spiritually while doing so! They have done so in monestaries and nunneries for centuries. There are plenty of women who achieved more in their lives economically after being widowed early in life than while their spouses were alive!

Everybody, but KMC apparently, knows women can be self sufficient. And the vast majority of them will still fall in love with the opposite sex. In fact, for many men, including myself, vibrant, self sufficient, and successful women who project an internal sense of their value and power are an incredible turn on. And the last thing a real man wants to do is clip her wings and make her totally dependent on him.

Yes, somewhere between 8 and 12 percent of humans will continue to be attracted to the same sex. Just as they have been throughout human history. And this has never spelled the end of culture or human life, and it never will. The vast majority of people are heterosexual and will continue to be.

NEWS FLASH!!!
Heterosexuals have nothing to fear from homosexuals! They are after equal treatment from us, not to destroy us. REAL men, unlike KMC, have nothing to fear from feminists. They are not after the destruction of men, but equal treatment and self achievement, just like men are. And the majority of them are heterosexual!!!

Yes, perverts like KMC have for centuries entertained themselves while they fantasize about what men and women in those monestaries did to themselves and each other. Whats surprising is that such people can continue to attract a few blind fools to join them in their dark fantasies and perversions.

Regrets
I work in a field in which most of my co-workers are women. I have worked with many childless heterosexual women who decided not to work on having a relationship because they were feminists and wanted to pursue their own goals.

Most of those women are sad. They openly express their pain and regret that they bought into the ridiculous feminist hype that a career is the way to achieve fulfillment. Many of these women are now in their 40s and are having to accept the fact that they will never have the parts of life that the feminist movement told them to reject as without value when they were in their 20s.

Being successful at work can be PART of a satisfying and full life, but is a poor substitute for a loving relationship and children. A job that was really fulfilling and fun would be a vacation and you would have to pay to do it rather than be paid.

Tamalak
Your post has already made my day. I wouldn't have thought there was anything funnier than Kevin McCullough trying to open the eyes of men abd women everywhere to the evils of independent girls.

What is the word for fear of females? femmephobia?

I think the only men that women tend to not need in their lives are men like McCullough - hostile, afraid, sanctimonious, bitter, and worst of all, ignorant and humorless.

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.

In response to Geo and JoJo
I note the author never suggested that women ought to 'submit their lives under the will of a man', nor did he suggest that girls NOT be independent; the flip side of his argument that women are better off in relationships with men is that *men are bettered thereby, as well*.

The fact that both of you resorted to strawman arguments seems to demonstrate an extreme unwillingness to actually discuss the true issue: that whether men and women were CREATED to be together, or whethere they EVOLVED to be together, most find the greatest satisfaction in relationship with a member of the opposite sex. We are designed that way.

Aw, man, Tallil2long,
Just when I was starting to listen (because you sounded so respectful and secure, like my husband) you pounced on slacker -- way too hard -- for what was at the very worst an angry response to KM. What about the very valid points made by slacker? KM's article *was* lacking in substance and support. The media's treatment of the subject was, indeed, balanced -- nothing like he implied.

Then, you go on to wonder about slacker's marital status. How is this any better than slacker questioning (but admitting that s/he cannot know for sure) the motives for KM's apparent obsession with sexual minorities (see archived articles)?

You say that KM did not claim that men and women need each other, then you say that slacker doesn't know how much men and women need each other. Help?

I consider myself a feminist. That doesn't mean that I agree with all feminists, but it does mean that I pay attention to women's (reasonable) concerns and I get tired of reading all the caricatures.

I've been extremely happily married for more than 25 years. My husband treats me much the way you describe your treatment of your wife. I treat him well, too. His bout with cancer left us highly appreciative of the love we already had.

But neither of us fears feminists having babies all by themselves, nor lesbians, nor gay men, nor transgendered, nor any of the evils that do seem to rock Mr. McCollough's boat. Women and men are going to couple forever and a day. 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.

Kevin McCollough's hyperbole is his standard technique. I don't know why he writes as he does, but it is a highly interesting phenomenon. certainly not easily explained as part of a secure man's rationale analysis.

What am I missing here? Seriously.

Martha




correction
Sorry! McCullough, not "McCollough"

I loathe misspelling a person's name.

In response to Martha
Thanks for reining me in on this one. You're right- I did jump on slacker too hard. I really do try to avoid excess in these discussions, but I fail more often than I'd like.
I needn't have cast aspersions on his understanding of relationships. I should have made my point another way.

"You say that KM did not claim that men and women need each other, then you say that slacker doesn't know how much men and women need each other"

Okay, I was attempting to point out that there is a difference between 'needing' and 'being able to live without'. I need my wife in order to truly be fulfilled. I COULD exist without her. I think slacker confused these concepts.

As for the media take on this issue, you'll note I did tacitly accept his claim that only 'one or two' articles dealt with the matter in the fashion KM deplores so much.

As for you being a feminist... I'm surprised no one else mentioned it, so I will. One extremely justifiable criticism of KM in this article is his stereotypical treatment of the term 'feminist'. He only allows for
one definition of the term. This is clearly wrong. There are certain feminists who behave in at least rough approximation of his claims. But not all do.

to slacker: I apologize for my hurtful comment. I'll try to be less combative and more civil in the future.

Thanks, Geo, Martha
I was direct in my opinion of KMC, but do not think I was "over the top." I did say up front in my post I had tongue in cheek.

Tallil2long
-----------
Please try to find a sense of humor somewhere. I'll admit I have opinions and state them strongly. So does KMC, and he is no stranger to hyperbole.

There is less irrational hysteria in my fairly well reasoned post than in KMC's article.

It is also easy to assure yourself of KMC's obsession on the topic of homosexuality and bizzare need to link it to every evil in the universe. Just go back over the last 20 or so of his columns on TH. You will find that a large number, perhaps the majority of them, are primarily on, or include a discussion or reference to homosexuality.

I will be back. For now, I am going out on a "treasure hunt" with my wife and some friends on this beautiful day ....

Second response to Martha
"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."

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.


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 in their salesmanship, nor their ardor, or repetition with words. I am not even especially moved by talent, or a gift, if it is not rightly used.

Because, when we get down to it, anyone can write, or speak in a way that seems passionate, and not just confident, but convinced. But, we are blind if we follow along with such medicine, and don't question whence they speak.

It is the essence of what they have to say, how it holds up in relation to God's will, Word, and his Truth, that determines whether or not an argument or agreement is worth flighting for.

In the end, and in between, mr "Slacker"s words are not more than a clear and concise recitation of what an educated Liberal believes.

They are educated in secular dens of education, where a Liberal and Socialistic mindset is the order of the day.

They feed their flighty brand of bigotry, and "logic" with all the Liberal news feeds, pumped up and propped up, by Liberal media, contemporaries, and authors who feel the same way.

But no matter how smooth the speech, one's being more able to communicate does not make that one's views more valid.

A key insight is how personal attacks, slanders, and sullied allusions are thrown about as if they are a fact, no matter what a story actually says.
These techniques, tactics, if you will, are all about the Liberal mindset, and never have a thing to do with fact or Truth.

They are simply a blind flurry of childish fury, and a wasted effort at distracting readers from Truth, and arguing it away.

Here is a rule of thumb for you, skip contributions by authors who personally attack and slander others as mr "Slacker" has done to Mr. McCullough on countless days.

I won't read lies, and dishonest meanderings, no matter how nicely they are formatted or presented.

Nor should you!

Examine the source..

Unless you don't know them..

Then, weight the words against absolute Truth.



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

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 :(

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.

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."

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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..


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.

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.

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






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..


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 :)

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.

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...

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.




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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

I should have referenced my post

Thinkwell 4:58 pm. Last sentence.

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.



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

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

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'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".

CORRECTION
"Marraige" should be marriage.

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!


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. :)

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.

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."

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)

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.......

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..


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*







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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. :)

Nazi Feminists
It appears Misandry is alive and well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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. :)

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.

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.

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."

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.


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.

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?

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.

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!

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"


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, 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.

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!

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 particula