Women are Drinking More,
and Drunk While Driving More
This recently in from the Associated Press wire:
Perhaps it is pressure from the patriarchy which is making this happen. . . . :-\. . .EH?
"NEW YORK — It seemed too horrendous even to imagine. But the case of the mother who caused a deadly wrong-way crash while drunk and stoned is part of a disturbing trend: Women in the U.S. are drinking more, and drunken-driving arrests among women are rising rapidly while falling among men. . . ."
Full story HERE: http://tinyurl.com/ls3hy7
Perhaps it is pressure from the patriarchy which is making this happen. . . . :-\. . .EH?
posted by Fidelbogen at 8:36 PM
47 Comments:
Oddly enough the news report does claim it's the patriarchy that's to blame:
"Our society has taught us that women have an extra burden to be the perfect mothers and perfect wives and perfect daughters and perfect everything,"
They mention in there how women nowadays have to be supermom b/c they are working and doing most of the nurturing work with the children - these pressure lead to higher rates of alcoholism. And I would just to point out that they are trying to be "supermom" b/c they can't see that it is impossible to successfully accomplish both being a good mother (thus they have a guilt complex on some level) AND successful career woman (thus they feel incompetent in comparison to men). On the other hand, if they give up the career after having been accustomed to receiving a paycheck there is the feeling of dependency on their spouse (which really should be normal). These women are so used to feeling independent that just the concept of being a good mom is not enough. They are trained to believe that being a helluva mother is not the best thing one can strive for as a married woman. When society tries to "level the playing field" in the work place between the sexes saying "we (women) can do as much as you men, and even better usually" (I don't agree with this, but it is the attitude) it causes all women, feminist or not to begin to measured their worth in monetary values. I say feminist or not b/c today nearly all of our young women are raised by members of the baby boomer generation when women's rights were especially all the rage.
Women today are extremely conflicted and it leads not only to alcoholism, but also to severe problems with their children, and that en masse can only lead to an even more screwed up society.
Will they ever learn?! HELLO! Feminism and "female supremacism" doesn't work!!! Get out of the work place and into your home and take care of your kids!
But, as we know, this (society disorder and the resultant chaos) is all part of the plan....
Salutations.
Women and children are suffering because us men have abandoned the Cross.
We have run away in fear, and have left Christ hanging all alone again.
Until we stand as men, and fight the good fight, things will continue to downslide.
Men that pretend to be Holy are the same as men who are prideful of their wickedness. They both do nothing to extend the kingdom of Christ.
Pray for the innocent women and children who are suffering through our fault.
Men have found a good hiding place for their cajones.
May God have mercy on us.
@Pablo:
Hmmm...
That certainly is a very different way of saying that "men are the problem".
But other than that, you don't sound much like a feminist. ;)
@anon:
"Oddly enough the news report does claim it's the patriarchy that's to blame:
"Our society has taught us that women have an extra burden to be the perfect mothers and perfect wives and perfect daughters and perfect everything,"
Anon, I beg to differ. The news report merely implies than "society" is to blame.
This is what happens when women believe they are the same as men.
It is incredibly dangerous,not to mention patently absurd, to assert that there are no differences between the sexes. Just one more reason that feminism has to go.
From article:
"There's the impression out there that drunk driving is strictly a male issue, and it is certainly not the case," said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "There are a number of parts of the country where, in fact, the majority of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes are female."
Gee whiz! I wonder what creates that impression? Maybe it's the entirely sexist nature of public service messages against drunk diving.. Or maybe it's just that drunk women don't have friends to drive them home?
Reading the article, I got the distinct impression that its aim was to report on the increasing incidence of drunk driving among women without impinging too harshly on our notions of feminine moral superiority.
Pablo is a silly little man.
Men have not so much abandoned the cross as women have refused to submit as is their biblical command.
Keep out spouting your nonsense, it will never get you laid, though, which is the only reason manginas say things such as you do.
@MartyLee:
". . I got the distinct impression that its aim was to report on the increasing incidence of drunk driving among women without impinging too harshly on our notions of feminine moral superiority."
What keen little eyes you have! ;)
Dear Anonymous
Mangina.
First time I have ever been called that. Is that your invention or is it a colloquialism in the world in which you live?
'Getting laid' has never been a problem for me.
I did not tell my girl "I love you" and then lead her into mortal sin; I married her before an altar of the Lord. We had eight children until cancer of the uterus prevented any more births. We have twenty grandchildren. I very much have enjoyed procreating with her (by the way, she carried them for nine months, me for the rest of their lives).
If I stated women's problems are directly attributable to us men, it is enforced by the teachings of Holy Mother Church. The Catechism would teach this to you were you to spend some time in spiritual matters instead of wasting your time calling nobodies like me silly little men.
May God our Lord in his infinite and supreme goodness be pleased to give us his abundant grace, that we may know his most holy will, and entirely fulfill it.
Santa María de Guadalupe Esperanza nuestra, salva nuestra patria y conserva nuestra Fe.
*
Well, I like you Pablo. ;)
BTW, welcome to hell on earth. Pray for my soul too please.
@Pablo:
Your reference to 'Santa María de Guadalupe' leads me to think that you are writing from Mexico.
Anyhow: I can see that you are a religious conservative of the old school. The VERY old school. .
And that's okay; we need soldiers in this army. And we're a bit like the French Foreign Legion in one respect: we're fairly casual about background checks. ;)
But the question is. . . what side are you on?
Which army are you REALLY marching in? (And please don't say "the army of God." I can see already that you march in THAT army. What I want to know is, which earthly, political army?)
To me, you sound like a member of feminism's right wing. And how so?
Because: your stated position (so far) is difficult to distinguish from FEMALE SUPREMACISM.
And female supremacism is identical with feminism. Those terms are interchangeable.
You wish for men to take up the cross on behalf of women - in imitation of Christ, yes?
Well the left-wing female supremacists are somewhat similar insofar that they wish to "crucify" men. (So to speak!)
But there the similarity stops. The left-wing feminists merely see men as DOGS. Not the least bit Christ-like, mind you!
So, I hope that you are not taking up the cross for the benefit of Gloria Steinem. Or Alison Jaggar. Or Jessica Valenti. Or Amanda Marcotte. Or Nancy Grace. Or Harriet Harman. And the list goes on and on . . .
If you intend to crucify yourself for a woman, then she had better be worth it, my friend!!
Her value had better be greater than rubies. . .
Any radical left-wing feminist, reading what you have written here, would be laughing so hard she'd be pissing her panties!
And after she got through laughing and pissing, she would say: "Suckerrrr!"
And I've got to be honest: most left-wing feminists aren't even remotely Catholic! ;)
Pablo, you are a man of the "patriarchal" Holy Mother Church, but who do you really serve? When push comes to shove, which side of the fence do you stand upon?
Are you a right-wing fifth-columnist for left-wing female supremacism, forming a cultural backdoor connection with their agenda?
Or do you stand with the non-feminist revolution?
Think carefully about this?
-------------
BTW: You were wondering about the word 'mangina'.
This shows me that you are an outsider to the MRA scene. Anyhow, that word, mangina, has been around for maybe 6 years. It is a political term that refers to male supporters of feminism, or to men who adopt an abject, neurotic, servile attitude toward women in line with female supremacism.
'Mangina' is a synonym for TRAITOR.
I'm sure you don't want to be a mangina, or even mistaken for one. . . :(
Here is an article I wrote about an interesting (but disgusting) mangina by the name of Kyle Payne:
Click Here.
@F, has Pablo answered yet? Tick, tick. Time can pass slowly sometimes. ;)
"Tick, tick. Time can pass slowly sometimes. ;)"
Oh, but it always passes. 'Specially when you look back and wonder where it all went so fast! ;)
Dear Mr. Fidelbogen,
Salutations.
Thank you for the response to my comments.
You asked: what side are you on? Pablo, you are a man of the "patriarchal" Holy Mother Church, but who do you really serve? When push comes to shove, which side of the fence do you stand upon?
I stand upon the Rock.
The woman whom I kneel before is Holy Mary, as she appeared to us in Mexico; Nuestra Senora Santa Maria de Guadalupe. The next woman in my life was my mother, may she rest in peace, and my godmother, who Baptized and Confirmed me, and was my Madrina at my marriage. These are and were women of great faith and fidelity to our Divine Master.
They were submissive to their husbands in all things. They catechized me and made certain I received the Sacraments as I should. They encouraged me to stand by Christ crucified, and not worry or subscribe to those things counter to our Lord's will.
I am not a Saint of devotions. I am just a stinky Mexican who is Catholic from birth.
If the devil wants a fight, he has one here. His children want to fight, no problem. It has come to hand to hand combat at times, and only God's grace and mercy has sheltered me from fatal harm.
If you search history, you will find no man ever raised a great son; all great men of history were raised by their mothers, Christ Jesus included.
It is unfortunate men even know the names of lesbians that hide their filthy perversion behind the mask of feminism. That is all feminism is, another way to say, "Nonserviam".
Take off the filth of the world, and go to the Blessed Sacrament, spend time with our Lord. Attend a Tridentine Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is an exact copy of Christ Crucified.
There, before the Truth, you will discover who you are, what you are, but most important, what God wants you to be.
I am sorry you did not recognize I am no limp wristed punk sissy.
I believe if you click on my name, you will be directed to my blog, where you can get my website address; hopefully this site doesn’t mind my shameless self-promotion.
God be with you, and with all the followers of this blog.
pablo
*
I think it's both - women refusing to submit as proper order would dictate and too many men allowing such a thing too happen (because it's easier to not deal with it? because they are feminized? who know). How many marriages can we think of where exactly such a scenario happens? And that is the root of the problem. When these issues start in the family, the root of societal structure, it is inevitable that it will infect the rest of society as a whole and not only infect it but perpetuate it into the following generations. The children learn first and foremost by the example of their parents, now as much as in the 1940's when so many of the popular movies were filled with man-eating heroines and men who capitulated to them. Is it any wonder that today the average young man would have little to no concept of masculinity without hyper concern for his appearance. And interestingly enough, while there is high degree of political correctness regarding women, there is barely any chivalry or common gentlemanly acts. I, for one, as a woman, miss that - do these feminists revel in the fact that a man won't open the door for them, etc...?
Both the non-submission of women and the by-and-large voluntary submission of men simultaneously came about because Hollywood and the media pushed it as the norm - and if something is repeated frequently enough, even if it is repugnant to our natures, the masses of society will assimilate it into what they accept as truth. Feminism, homosexuality, evolutionism, relativism, the list goes on....
Hmmm. . . all of this Catholic talk is getting a bit out of my league. Heck, I'm just an MRA! ;)
So, from that vantage point, let's see if I can tie together some political threads:
Feminism is working hard to turn your Holy Mother Church into an unholy (and unpatriarchal) train wreck. Ordaining women to the priesthood is in that line. Rotting the theological underpinnings is also in that line.
But I won't say too much, since I'm sure you guys know way more about that than I do. Anybody wanna sound off about Vatican 2? ;) (I'd be interested. . .)
Anyway, since I am the Counter-feminist, I would certainly welcome the growth of a "puritan" movement within the Roman Catholic Church. That is something that I would be, all in all, rather pleased to see happening. Yes, even as an outsider, such a trend would please me for political reasons.
Such a trend would please me, because it would not be good for feminism.
By all means, re-catholicize Catholicism! As far as I'm concerned (speaking as a non-catholic) if that makes the RCC uncomfortable for "liberals", then those same individuals ought to vote with their feet and become 'secular humanists' - since they're virtually already there anyway! The true faith can get along just as well without them. And if they want to come back into the fold later, they'll just have to put up with the inconveniences I reckon, eh?
As a philosopher I say, that if you are going to stand for something. . . then STAND for it!!
If you are going live decisively for something, then LIVE DECISIVELY FOR IT, and not indecisively for some crippled, worthless imitation of it.
None of this wishy-washy crap about 'having your cake and eating it too.'
All right.
As for 'chivalry and gentlemanly acts': feminism killed that.
And yet, plenty of women still expect to be pampered and put on a pedestal, not aware of the double-standard which they are living. (The disconnect with present societal reality hasn't penetrated their thick skulls yet!)
But there is an entire male sector dedicated to 'submissiveness' toward women, AND perpetuating something very much like 'chivalry' (the two go hand in hand). That sector is called the pro-feminist men's movement, and ... they are a truly sickening ensemble of sycophants - an even worse enemy to men than female feminists.
And now I have run out of steam. So I will call it quits for tonight, even if I haven't reached a natural stopping point yet. . .
Pablo says...,
It is unfortunate men even know the names of lesbians that hide their filthy perversion behind the mask of feminism. That is all feminism is, another way to say, "Nonserviam".
As much as I feel the anti feminist movement is correct in fighting for men's rights politically, I am pleased Pablo came by.
A fight for women's submissiveness seems to be the radical part of the MRM, yet unlike servants of God, these men think it is there right (just because they are man) to women and children as Lucifer saying, "I will not serve".
To them, they themselves are equal to God just as the radical feminists think they are.
So we seem to have 2 sides fighting over women. May they both lose and allow women to serve the one, true and only God as he himself wants them to. Not as man or woman thinks.
And yet by coming here, Pablo has stumbled onto a non feminist movement. Something that fights the filthy women wanting to be God to own the women and children.
I think Pablo belongs and I think he is right to say men need to step up. As more and more radicals join, more and more good men whether stinky Mexicans (his words)or others must stand also.
@Mareika:
"A fight for women's submissiveness seems to be the radical part of the MRM . ."
I reckon you must be speaking of those MRAs who do nothing but complain about women?
They are fit for soldiers, but not for generals.
I'm afraid women have far too much power over those chaps! :(
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well good luck to you up on that cross Pablo, but I think I'll pass. The West has done rather well with its 2,000 years of imagery of a man being sacrificed so that everyone else gets to benefit, but it has finally come to its logical conclusion. We're running short on men to sacrifice, and a tad over-supplied with gaping mouths and wide female arses.
I don't know how long the Incas got by running on sacrificial virgin maids, but maybe they managed 2,000 years as well. If so, it wouldn't appear to matter much which fuel you feed into the sacrificing machine - just so long as it's someone else.
@Mareika:
"@F, you say the male radicals are fit for soldiers but isn't that what feminists said about their radical women also?"
Feminist radicals were and are the generals on that side. They were and are the real driving force. If I haven't made that clear on this blog . . . then I don't know what to say. :(
BTW, I consider myself a "radical". And why? Because, I wish to go to the root of the problem. Because I have a radical analysis.
Radical. From the Latin Radix = "root".
There is more to being a "radical" than having an angry attitude. Way more. And sometimes the attitude isn't even necessary. ;)
Oh..if you want your comment to disappear, you know how to make that happen, right? ;)
@Anon: I am intrigued by your image of a sacrificing machine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"I am intrigued by your image of a sacrificing machine."
Yes, it was one of those things that hit me like a bolt of lightning after spending so much time reading about our history, and the peculiar state we are in where men are subservient to women in the West - quite unlike the state of affairs outside of the Christian world. I don't think any of the non-Christian countries have seen any of the all-out carnage of men we have seen in battles, while women sleep soundly in warm beds. That's the extreme end of course - the middle ground is also well filled in, with the unrelenting pillage of male labour through marital law, taxes and divorce.
But then, a simple drive around any Western city and the same symbol re-appears over and over again. That one that Pablo feels compelled to nail himself on. Our forbears have marched to battle with it drawn on their shields, or had it painted on their air-craft. What we place over their dead bodies, by the millions, once they have done what the cross demands.
Our culture was built on the principle of man-sacrifice. That's what Christianity is - Christ was the example for the rest of us. Women get a pass. That's how it differs from every other religion.
No thanks.
@anon 4:20:
This is not the 'argue about religion blog' of course, but I should highlight some things that are revelatory and politically useful.
Both Marxism and feminism operate from an underlying narrative template that was essentially 'ripped off' from Christianity.(And to be fair, it's pretty hard for new social movements to NOT echo the archetypal patterns already established within their culture. That is how the world works: the new steals from the old.;)
More accurately, Marxism stole from Christianity first, and then feminism stole from Marxism. Anyway, in the case of feminism, what you ended up with is a highly perverted and distorted end product.
If, as per your thesis, Christianity 'sacrifices' men, it at least (indisputably) offers some 'perks'. Among these, a more unobstructed scope for men to "do what men do", and be rewarded and respected for it. Along with the expectation that women will be, if not 'submissive', then at the very least helpful, supportive, non-interfering, and above all non-competing.
Feminism STILL sacrifices men, but has taken away just about ANY element of comfort or compensation or gratitude for such sacrifice. Men are now 'dogs', and may be treated accordingly.
Feminism, in short, has been a social power-grab, on a monumental scale, by some very filthy women - along with a male traitor class, of course, without whose assistance their plan would never amount to much! (Yes, they still need men!)
Viewed thuswise, I think it is perfectly right that the various denominations of the Christian religion (Catholic and Protestant equally) should undertake some form of "purification" in order to draw the line against feminist influence within their own communities and institutional structures.
I say, more power to them! It means large, socially important blocs of territory secured against feminist capture. Which, in the long run will benefit ALL non-feminists.
It also means establishing (or rather, preserving) the principle that men ought to be men, and be respected for it, and be accorded some manner of compensation for whatever sacrifices they must endure. . .
Finally, as a non-feminist strategic philosopher, I see the need to form COALITIONS against a common enemy. Yes, even among groups who mightn't be inclined toward allegiances in the usual course of things. . .
In the end, I could wish for a scenario that resembles both the 'checks-and-balances' principle in government, and the 'balance of power' principle in international relations. The governing idea is, of course, that power gets distributed in a manner that undercuts the danger of lop-sided accumulation.
(Which means that feminism will be stymied, dead in its tracks, and the empire that can't stop will have nowhere to grow!)
Your very good at what you do Fidelbogen. It is enjoyable to read what you say and it teaches me a thing or two about a thing or two ;)
Mareika.
Dear Women,
I have enjoyed discussion on this blog. It is well done and brings many serious matters to the forefront.
Someone mentioned herein that a solid group should form from this blog. This is a great idea, considering 'they' are starting to mobilize against people like yourselves; people with dangerous and radical thought, outside that which the State wants.
http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292
This is one place they have ready for you:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4
The Incas were in Peru. Mayas and Aztecs were in Mexico. They mocked God through human sacrifice and perverted sexual activity; open homosexuality and so on. Only the leaders did not take it up the arse as the British say.
Anywhere you see pervert activity the Devil is present.
It has been nice cat chatting with you young ladies. I wish you all well.
Judging from your comments, you are some real babes.
Keep up the good work.By the way, did any of you bother checking out my blog and website? How 'bout some opinions from honest people for a change? That would be nice.
God be with you.
pablo
*
Eh...Pablo, you're somethin' else, dude! ;)
I checked out your blog, but it was rather load heavy with all the graphics; I had difficulty consuming it. . .
Oh, and there are a total of 2 "babes" on this thread, but the rest of us are just a pack o' stinky patriarchs. Y'know, the same old usual. . .
:(
@Anonymous"Mareika": I'm flattered, but. . .
Why did you delete so many of your comments? I mean, they were good ones! :(
@F,
Why did you delete so many of your comments? I mean, they were good ones! :(
Oh, once I started being critical, I couldn't stop myself.;)
@Mareika:
"Oh, once I started being critical.."
Ahhhh. . . now that's the attitude! Keep that up and you just might turn into a **writer**...
That is ... IF you can finally stop deleting everything! :(
Dear Fidelbogen,
Bullseye!
The web site is clean of incidentals, but you are right, the blog is graphics heavy. This is for the Latin American community to best use the information... I have traveled across Mexico, into the little pueblos, and found pictures still tell much of the story.
Thanks for stopping by. Gives us something to brag about.
No one else has noticed the graphics that way. Congratulations, eagle-eye.
Have fun. And keep encouraging your bloglodites to keep hammering truthfully.
God be with you.
pablo
*
@F, thanks for your reply. Hmmm, a writer would be a real buzz.
I would love to write a book.
@all:
The comment thread on this bitty little post is like a ten-mile tail wagging a ten-inch dog!
It has been fun, but I really ought to post something new on the blog. I am getting lazy.
So. . . I think I will have something up by later this evening.
F - great post above (the one starting out how its not a regligion blog) and I agree completely
here are some thoughts I had of the comments above
I rather resent the idea that men do all the sacrificing and women just "sleep soundly in their beds" - has the person who claimed such a thing never been exposed to pregnancy, labor, childbirth, and the trials of having a new born? It is not a task that is carried out "sleeping soundly in (our) beds."
If anything our sleep is interrupted constantly, and I can honestly say that I can think of very few things that could so affect a person's sanity as lack of sleep for an extended period of time. So comments like that I find offensive: is this where the little seed of feminism springs from?
Secondly, I think it is stupid for either sex to consider itself better than the other. Our sex dictates that we each have duties to perfom, what we Catholic's call crosses.
Men's crosses are not meant to be carried by women (this means politics, war, managing companies, you get the drift), and women's crosses were not meant to be carried by men (nurturing children, having children, taking care of the home, and all the sundry domestic duties which are typically most noticed when they are not performed, as is the case with many a bachelor).
In this sense we are all meant to "nail ourselves up on that cross," afterall without the fulfillment of our duty of state in life, we cannot attain heaven. My husband and I would never presume to think that we could successfully undertake to carry the responsiblities which the other is (joyfully at times) burdened with.
Men and women should respect each other for what they are capable and realize the limitations of their sex rather than play a childish competitive comparison game.
trent13,
My comments above are not specifically directed at Catholicism, nor do I think the religious aspect of them particularly important.
I don't doubt that women have their share of hardship - that would be too ridiculous on my part - but it would be equally ridiculous to assert that the hardship is shared between the sexes evenly.
All the usual figures for comparing identity groups - longevity, suicide rates, imprisonment, education level - are mightily against men. I needn't repeat here what is common knowledge on blogs like this. But while we wonder why women don't get the same sentences as men in trials, or why it is that the list of work-place fatalities is almost a men-only zone, and why 'women and children' are especially mentioned in the news whenever some tragedy occurs, is it really so scandalous to notice that the enduring symbol of our culture (and that of all the West) is that of a man being sacrificed?
So then you don't believe in the Western patriarchal system? Because the reason why men are required to lead, are above women in the hierarchy in the patriarchal system, is due to the fact that men are expected to shoulder more of the physical burden, mainly because they are capable of bearing more of the physical burden and it is natural to them. That simply can't be denied - it's the reason why men came up with sports in the absence of war, men must have an outlet for their competitive natures, that brute and physical side of them which in battle comes to the fore.
If you don't believe in the foundational premise that men, because they are capable of greater sacrifice, more sacrifice is accepted of them, thus they should lead, and we, women, should submit, than what do you believe in? It would seem that you expect the same equality of the sexes that feminists do. It is feminists that believe women are able and should be given the same burdens as men and see it as insulting and chauvanistic when they are not.
Women are given leniency because there is currently a double standard going on. There is a natural proclivity for all people to recognize the more tender nature of women, and yet they, at the same time capitulate to the feminist politically correct idea of equality in so many other spheres. It isn't right, and I have many issues with our justice system, other than this one (personally I think that justice, being blind, should not give a more lenient sentence to women because of their sex).
I don't find it scandalous at all that the cross of Christ is "the enduring symbol of our culture" and in fact would think that it is something for men to proud of. The Word was made flesh in the form of a man, Christ. It is a testament to the nobility of the sex, to God's choosing males as the heads of familiies, of communities, and of the Church. As God created Adam first, and throughout all of history man was considered the head of the line by which the seed was to be carried on, it only makes sense that Christ would be a man. And regardless of whether or not your comments were directed at Catholicism I would find it impossible to see them outside of a religious context. If we are discussing the the social requirements of the sexes from a historical perspective, especially Western history, one cannot just leave out religion as if though it had no ramifications on how Western society was formed. It is evident that you know this from how you draw your conclusion about the crucifixion, and yet you say you don't think the religious aspect of them to be particularly important. I don't quite understand that.
To any feminists who are reading this thread right now:
Take note, that Trent13 is a woman, and she thinks Patriarchy is a good idea! ;)
I, the blogmaster, am neither agreeing NOR disagreeing with Trent13 upon this point.
I say this because counter-feminist analysis takes a somewhat different view of what this word "patriarchy" essentially MEANS.
Time for a refresher course:
What They Don't Want You to Know
So, to me, "patriarchy" doesn't necessarily mean "men assuming burdens" (although it might include that depending on the circumstances), but rather MALE POWER in whatever form it may occur.
The feminists hate "patriarchy" because they hate MALE POWER.
And they hate 'male power' because it gets in the way of female supremacy - which is their supreme goal!
trent13,
Starting with your last point first, the reason I think the religious aspect of my comments less important is because I don't think you need to consider religion in observing an image of a man being sacrificed as being linked to systemic mistreatment of men.
Consider a visitor from outer space learning that our prisons are full of men, that those who we execute are men, that men are killing themselves at 4 times the rate of women, that they die younger and that if you watch television they are being dispatched in all sorts of horrible ways on a daily basis. If the alien were to remark 'yes, I noticed that there pictures of a man being hung out on a cross everywhere as well', then no invocation of religious themes are required.
I thought this an interesting comment:
"If you don't believe in the foundational premise that men, because they are capable of greater sacrifice, more sacrifice is accepted of them"
Personally, I think it's unnatural - it sounds like a way of punishing the strong for being strong.
As far as your other points go,what I want is to be treated no less than anyone else, simply because I am a man. I don't want to see other men murdered and their killers go free. I don't want men locked up in prisons for 20 years on nothing more than the word of a liar.
These are the little details that are important to me. How well they fit into a broader theoretical framework isn't something I trouble myself much with, though I would have to say that I don't disagree with everything a Feminist says, just because she is a Feminist. My usual reason for disagreement is that I recognize when she's gaining and I'm losing, and that that is the only point in question.
We must believe so differently as to why we were put on this earth that we can only disagree. Most everything which you present as a negative i see as a positive and vice versa.
F I do equate the patriarchal system with male authority - but also with "men assuming burdens" - the two are necessarily concommitant.
"the two are necessarily concommitant."
As in
"he who would rule must serve"?
Or . .
"From whom much is given, much will be asked."?
Yes. . I can see your point in a way. I need to chew on this a bit, but I will be back.
Oh.. and in my linked article above, my purpose was, to decode feminist language. The phrase was "male power", which is not *quite* the same as male authority, although the two things certainly overlap.
There is cognitive dissonance in the linked article:
One one hand, drinking is characterized as a way to escape the alleged 'supermom' lifestyle pressure....
"But the gap is narrowing, and among the reasons cited are that women are feeling greater pressures at work and home, they are driving more, and they are behaving more recklessly.
On the other, drinking is characterized as a tool of empowerment....
"Younger women feel more empowered, more equal to men, and have been beginning to exhibit the same uninhibited behaviors as men," said Chris Cochran of the California Office of Traffic Safety.
An empowered victim is an oxymoron. Lisa Flam wants to have her cake and eat it too: if someone pities the 'poor women', she can play up the you go grrl angle of empowerment to show that women are not 'lesser than men' and thus not the only one to be pitied; if someone holds drunk women responsible for their escapades, she can play the victim by blaming men.
@Davout:
Nice to see that you haven't dropped off the edge of the universe. OR. . that if you have, you made it back again! ;)
Fidelbogen; I have written a short essay on something that is troubling me. The main premise is Unity, but I don't want to give too much to the general public before I'm sure it communicates what I want to say.
The problems are that it's full of holes, and I wanted to ask. Do you write something and then come back to it the next day or next week and see if it still resonates? Do things inspire you daily to improve the work in question?
I can send it to you, via the Earthling e-mail if you prefer, if you feel like reading it to see where it's going. It's something I haven't seen discussed much save for Novaseeker.
I have a violin, I just need a Violin Bow (yeah, I went there :P)
@Amstrat:
Yeah ... I think the Earthling route would be the best plan.
I shall await.
Fidel,
Yup, I'm back from the extraterrestrial boonies! I bring greetings from Kang and Kodos!
Work took me away from blogging which was probably a good thing because I needed the extended break from the frontline.
Good to see you're on the ball, all guns blazing.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home