Saving the Males

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

A couple of excellent articles on how society is destroying men.
http://nypost.com/2008/06/08/save-the-males/
http://www.salon.com/2001/02/06/farrell/

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Who knew that actions had consequences? Treat men like crap, discard them, tell them they aren’t needed, and then wonder why they changed……….

Order the good wine

[EskimospyParticipant 841]

That NY Post article was a nice little one sided rant built out of strawman arguments, insulting jabs and mere assumptions. Only talking about the what and never once asking the why. Never honestly asking why so many men are the way they are, never even asking us; only assuming an answer and then simply going with it. I have no respect for this irresponsible “journalist”.

[AntipathyParticipant 4901]

Eskimospy wrote:

That NY Post article was a nice little one sided rant built out of strawman arguments, insulting jabs and mere assumptions. Only talking about the what and never once asking the why. Never honestly asking why so many men are the way they are, never even asking us; only assuming an answer and then simply going with it. I have no respect for this irresponsible “journalist”.

Haha who would have guessed the NY Times would be biased against MEN ? No way !! A New York based newspaper/site would host an article of jabs at men ? 🙂

[xlrsnbrgParticipant 1786]

“I said, ‘Uh-huh. I see what this movement is about. It’s about women having choices, not about fairness,’” recalls Farrell. “I definitely agree with choices for women, but I do not agree with choices for women when they eliminate choices for men. Rather, I think that the sexes need to make choices that lead to the maximum amount of win-win for both sexes.”

Throughout history, says Farrell, men have been encouraged to be “disposable,” that is, ultimately willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the community. Men are trained for this through competitive sports, like football. They learn that they must buy love with their own pain (on the field or the time clock) and, ultimately, be willing to die. And they do

Yes, says Farrell, “we have more empathy for whales than males.”

A man shouldn't make his life's objective to be on the side of the majority, but to avoid finding himself in the ranks of the insane. (Marcus Aurelius)

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

bobphilo wrote:

A couple of excellent articles on how society is destroying men.
http://nypost.com/2008/06/08/save-the-males/
http://www.salon.com/2001/02/06/farrell/

Sorry, I’m not going to read articles from 2001 and 2008, too many things have changed (aka: worsened) since that.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Eric Lauder wrote:

bobphilo wrote:

A couple of excellent articles on how society is destroying men.
http://nypost.com/2008/06/08/save-the-males/
http://www.salon.com/2001/02/06/farrell/

Sorry, I’m not going to read articles from 2001 and 2008, too many things have changed (aka: worsened) since that.

So you’re saying the articles are irrelevant without even bothering to read them? Some things don’t change and the point of these articles is that society is destroying men. Just as true today as then, or don’t you care about that?

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Antipathy wrote:

Eskimospy wrote:

That NY Post article was a nice little one sided rant built out of strawman arguments, insulting jabs and mere assumptions. Only talking about the what and never once asking the why. Never honestly asking why so many men are the way they are, never even asking us; only assuming an answer and then simply going with it. I have no respect for this irresponsible “journalist”.

Haha who would have guessed the NY Times would be biased against MEN ? No way !! A New York based newspaper/site would host an article of jabs at men ?

Antipathy wrote:

Eskimospy wrote:

That NY Post article was a nice little one sided rant built out of strawman arguments, insulting jabs and mere assumptions. Only talking about the what and never once asking the why. Never honestly asking why so many men are the way they are, never even asking us; only assuming an answer and then simply going with it. I have no respect for this irresponsible “journalist”.

Haha who would have guessed the NY Times would be biased against MEN ? No way !! A New York based newspaper/site would host an article of jabs at men ?

The article is from the NY Post, not the NY Times. The 2 papers are as opposite as they can be. You are also mistaken in thinking that the article is taking jabs at when when it is attacking feminism.

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Eskimospy wrote:

That NY Post article was a nice little one sided rant built out of strawman arguments, insulting jabs and mere assumptions. Only talking about the what and never once asking the why. Never honestly asking why so many men are the way they are, never even asking us; only assuming an answer and then simply going with it. I have no respect for this irresponsible “journalist”.

Please bother to read the article before making incorrect statements. It is clearly anti-feminist and decries what modern society has done to men.

[Anonymous 3]

bobphilo wrote:

Eskimospy wrote:

That NY Post article was a nice little one sided rant built out of strawman arguments, insulting jabs and mere assumptions. Only talking about the what and never once asking the why. Never honestly asking why so many men are the way they are, never even asking us; only assuming an answer and then simply going with it. I have no respect for this irresponsible “journalist”.

Please bother to read the article before making incorrect statements. It is clearly anti-feminist and decries what modern society has done to men.

lol anti-feminist? Looked like the usual hit piece against men. Like this little gem:

Men aren’t blameless in Parker’s social critique. Men age 18 to 35, she says, are “perpetual adolescents who see no point in growing up,” spending hours each day playing video games and watching mindless TV. But a society that demands little and expects less of men risks “cultural suicide.”

lol same old “Peter Pan” “man up” and “your only worth is providing for females, slave” mentality most of us shrug off. Anti-feminism apparently still includes mocking and condescending assumptions about men.

The grandest irony of this is that all the women I know in that age range were obsessed with shoes, purses, clothing and nowadays facebook/social media. Most lived with their parents or needed their parent’s money for rent. And even feminists claim women are twice as likely to be in debt and have twice as much credit card debt, while spinning that as women being victims at the same time as claiming women are much smarter financially.

Endless streams of absurd bulls~~~ that just never stops. And you’re supporting that? Come on man. I shouldn’t have to check you on this, you should be checking yourself.

You owe everyone in this thread an apology for that last blue pill BS you just pulled. Please don’t try to deny it and dig yourself a deeper hole, just own up to your mistake and face it (it’s not even a big deal if you just admit it).

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Please learn to improve your reading comprehension before commenting on this article You claim that the author is guilty of misandry when she in fact attacks it.

““Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care” is Kathleen Parker’s sharp and witty criticism of the American male-bashing culture, where boys are thought of as bad and girls are lauded as good. Parker rails against women like Dowd who perpetuate this misandry that has seeped into media, schools and family life.”

“Never heard of misandry? It’s the idea that men are inferior to women, but it’s not commonly used. While many of us know the word misogyny — the hatred of women — few dare to argue that men might not get a fair shake”.

“Parker asks readers to take a second look: Teenaged girls wear T-shirts that read “Stupid Factory: Where Boys Are Made” and sitcoms like “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “The Simpsons” are driven by plots of husbandly stupidity and wives saving the day. When we embrace the stereotype that men are mamma’s boys, invalids and bumblers, we’re falling into a dangerous trap: We’re emasculating the men we profess to love.”

Yes, she says that many young men are perpetual adolescents. Catch a clue and admit that all men are not perfect. She also goes on to say that it is because of the way misandric society has treated them. Are you so uptight that you cannot stand anyone saying that many men are victims of the way society treats them?

[Anonymous 3]

bobphilo wrote:

Please learn to improve your reading comprehension before commenting on this article You claim that the author is guilty of misandry when she in fact attacks it.

““Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care” is Kathleen Parker’s sharp and witty criticism of the American male-bashing culture, where boys are thought of as bad and girls are lauded as good. Parker rails against women like Dowd who perpetuate this misandry that has seeped into media, schools and family life.”

“Never heard of misandry? It’s the idea that men are inferior to women, but it’s not commonly used. While many of us know the word misogyny — the hatred of women — few dare to argue that men might not get a fair shake”.

“Parker asks readers to take a second look: Teenaged girls wear T-shirts that read “Stupid Factory: Where Boys Are Made” and sitcoms like “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “The Simpsons” are driven by plots of husbandly stupidity and wives saving the day. When we embrace the stereotype that men are mamma’s boys, invalids and bumblers, we’re falling into a dangerous trap: We’re emasculating the men we profess to love.”

Yes, she says that many young men are perpetual adolescents. Catch a clue and admit that all men are not perfect. She also goes on to say that it is because of the way misandric society has treated them. Are you so uptight that you cannot stand anyone saying that many men are victims of the way society treats them?

Why do you insist on digging yourself a bigger hole?

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Anonymous wrote:

bobphilo wrote:
Please learn to improve your reading comprehension before commenting on this article You claim that the author is guilty of misandry when she in fact attacks it.

““Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care” is Kathleen Parker’s sharp and witty criticism of the American male-bashing culture, where boys are thought of as bad and girls are lauded as good. Parker rails against women like Dowd who perpetuate this misandry that has seeped into media, schools and family life.”

“Never heard of misandry? It’s the idea that men are inferior to women, but it’s not commonly used. While many of us know the word misogyny — the hatred of women — few dare to argue that men might not get a fair shake”.

“Parker asks readers to take a second look: Teenaged girls wear T-shirts that read “Stupid Factory: Where Boys Are Made” and sitcoms like “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “The Simpsons” are driven by plots of husbandly stupidity and wives saving the day. When we embrace the stereotype that men are mamma’s boys, invalids and bumblers, we’re falling into a dangerous trap: We’re emasculating the men we profess to love.”

Yes, she says that many young men are perpetual adolescents. Catch a clue and admit that all men are not perfect. She also goes on to say that it is because of the way misandric society has treated them. Are you so uptight that you cannot stand anyone saying that many men are victims of the way society treats them?
Why do you insist on digging yourself a bigger hole?

Why do you insist on showing that you can’t read?

[HitmanParticipant]

why do you guys seem to enjoy arguing with each other so much ?

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Hitman wrote:

why do you guys seem to enjoy arguing with each other so much ?

Because I have a low tolerance for bulls~~~. I guess it’s a waste of time to expect some people living in the Bizzaro world to understand the point of a post rather than the opposite.

[xlrsnbrgParticipant 1786]

Hitman wrote:

why do you guys seem to enjoy arguing with each other so much ?

Why can’t you guys discuss this without being rude to each other?

I’d give a -1 to all three of you… (not you Hitman)

bobphilo wrote:

Please bother to read the article before making incorrect statements. It is clearly anti-feminist and decries what modern society has done to men.

The article is indeed anti-feminist, and it does decry what modern society has done to men. And it does seem mostly pro-men, except that paragraph phoenix found, which makes the article sound like traditionalist/conservative material (which I think he meant by “blue pill bulls~~~”). While tradcon principles are superior to the feminist/progressive ones applied nowadays in western society, they still conflict with MGTOW, since a man can’t go on his own way while carrying a family on his back. There is also the problem that most women don’t stay tradcons after getting married; so you end up with tradcon responsibilities required from the man, while the woman enjoys the feminist privileges (spousal support, custody etc.).

I did like very much the second article though.

A man shouldn't make his life's objective to be on the side of the majority, but to avoid finding himself in the ranks of the insane. (Marcus Aurelius)

[MaxParticipant 887]

Hitman wrote:

why do you guys seem to enjoy arguing with each other so much ?

Because this is internet!

I became a MGTOW because this was the only logical solution for a man survive in a world replete of gynocentrism and biased against men!

[aeragoanParticipant 1186]

May be they need more sperm donor’s lol,why they need us in their life anyway..plz let us be happy and peaceful in our mgtow life

[AttonParticipant]

Are men necessary? In 2005, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who authored a book by that title, said no. Women are soaring to new heights in education and the workplace — and men are intimidated by this success, she argued. And who needs them anyway when modern technology created the sperm bank? In Dowd’s world, men might be headed toward practical extinction.

If gone are men, gone are the systems they maintain to support the vagina subsidy.
Gone is men’s obligation to uphold gynocentrism, good luck wimins have fun while it lasts.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

aeragoan wrote:

May be they need more sperm donor’s lol,why they need us in their life anyway..plz let us be happy and peaceful in our mgtow life

Women are now going on talk shows saying that they are on the way towards producing synthetic sperm thus making men unnecessary. Total mysandrogenic bulls~~~. Incubators are already artificial uteri and someday we can make synthetic ovaries and eggs just as easily as synthetic sperm.
Besides women need us for a lot more than our sperm.

[Author]

Posts