Proof? How Much Proof do you Need?
The following item of vile, man-hating propaganda has recently appeared in the New York Times.
//www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?_r=4&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120825
I would remind all neophytes, or anybody who has wandered in here by chance, that such statements as the above-linked are routine and commonplace, so much that they blend seamlessly with the cultural atmosphere and nobody says anything about them. It is considered socially acceptable to say insulting, degrading things about the male sex, and even to print such remarks in a highly respected journal like the New York Times. This is so mainstream, and so normal, that the New York Times is not a bit ashamed of itself for doing such a thing.
Men, as a social class, are treated like a moral punching bag. It's just the way things are. And misandry (the hatred of men), runs like a poisonous undercurrent through the entire culture, bubbling up in a variety of forms here, there and all over the landscape. Why yes, even in high class publications like the New York Times!
But try publishing an article of a moral tenor like the above-linked, while swapping out male for female so it becomes a woman-hating statement instead of a man-hating one. Just try that. Then sit back and enjoy the shit storm that we both know would follow.
Of course, that is only fantasy. In the real world, the New York Times would never remotely publish any such article. And we both know it. Respectable society has ordained that it's okay-fine to treat men with crass bigotry -- but mind your step around the ladies, mister!
It is an extra treat to savor the oh-so-savvy reader comments, mostly from the college-degreed chattering classes who compose the NYT readership. They may be cultured and sophisticated and all o' that, by they appear to lack a certain down-to-earth humanity. Wouldn't you say? And the relevant moral urgency in the present case eludes them. Don't you think so?
In conclusion: every time I encounter something like this New York Times article, it's as though another chunk has broken loose from any feeling of moral obligation, on my part, toward any woman anywhere. I've watched those chunks rush away downstream for a good long while now, and it's a wonder I've anything left at all.
Words to the wise.
-----------------------------------
Update: Since I posted this item, the New York Times has "gated" the article in question, so that you must log in (as a subscriber, I assume) in order to read it. Sorry about that. But in brief, the article is an opinion piece in which Greg Hampikian of Boise, Idaho, muses in an oh-so-jaunty intellectual way about male disposability in the realm of reproduction and child-rearing. We've heard such talk repeatedly over the years, and it certainly does run true to pattern. It also links up (albeit implicatively) with Radfem essentialism and genocidalism -- for which, see the Agent Orange files, here:
agentorangefiles.com
//www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?_r=4&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120825
I would remind all neophytes, or anybody who has wandered in here by chance, that such statements as the above-linked are routine and commonplace, so much that they blend seamlessly with the cultural atmosphere and nobody says anything about them. It is considered socially acceptable to say insulting, degrading things about the male sex, and even to print such remarks in a highly respected journal like the New York Times. This is so mainstream, and so normal, that the New York Times is not a bit ashamed of itself for doing such a thing.
Men, as a social class, are treated like a moral punching bag. It's just the way things are. And misandry (the hatred of men), runs like a poisonous undercurrent through the entire culture, bubbling up in a variety of forms here, there and all over the landscape. Why yes, even in high class publications like the New York Times!
But try publishing an article of a moral tenor like the above-linked, while swapping out male for female so it becomes a woman-hating statement instead of a man-hating one. Just try that. Then sit back and enjoy the shit storm that we both know would follow.
Of course, that is only fantasy. In the real world, the New York Times would never remotely publish any such article. And we both know it. Respectable society has ordained that it's okay-fine to treat men with crass bigotry -- but mind your step around the ladies, mister!
It is an extra treat to savor the oh-so-savvy reader comments, mostly from the college-degreed chattering classes who compose the NYT readership. They may be cultured and sophisticated and all o' that, by they appear to lack a certain down-to-earth humanity. Wouldn't you say? And the relevant moral urgency in the present case eludes them. Don't you think so?
In conclusion: every time I encounter something like this New York Times article, it's as though another chunk has broken loose from any feeling of moral obligation, on my part, toward any woman anywhere. I've watched those chunks rush away downstream for a good long while now, and it's a wonder I've anything left at all.
Words to the wise.
-----------------------------------
Update: Since I posted this item, the New York Times has "gated" the article in question, so that you must log in (as a subscriber, I assume) in order to read it. Sorry about that. But in brief, the article is an opinion piece in which Greg Hampikian of Boise, Idaho, muses in an oh-so-jaunty intellectual way about male disposability in the realm of reproduction and child-rearing. We've heard such talk repeatedly over the years, and it certainly does run true to pattern. It also links up (albeit implicatively) with Radfem essentialism and genocidalism -- for which, see the Agent Orange files, here:
agentorangefiles.com
Labels: battle for feminism's soul
posted by Fidelbogen at 12:53 AM
9 comments
