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:
"Why yes, even in high class publication like the New York Times!"
High class? Where have you been? The NYT has beclowned itself so many times in the last 20 years it can hardly be called a newspaper, let alone the newspaper of record.
I hold the NYT to be no more an arbiter of truth than Oprah Fucking Winfrey.
Um...apparently somebody has a tin ear for sarcasm?
Okay. Yes, yes, yes, you are absolutely right about the NYT.
Nevertheless, its mystique or halo within the social mainstream remains undiminished.
Society considers it high class. Dig?
It is odd that an article like that was written by someone claiming to be a biologist. Clearly he is a very poor scientist because all of the arguments presented are spurious.
For example:
- most of your 'mass' does come from your mother (if you a baby and still breast feeding), but your body replaces ALL of the molecules it contains over time. By the time you reach adulthood none of your 'mass' is from either your father or mother. All that remains is the information contained in your DNA, which is 50% from your father and 50% from your mother. And of course the information is all that really matters.
- the claim that a woman can have a child "without a man", is obviously false because "she just needs to secure sperm(fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead)". The 'donor' IS a man, so she is not having a child WITHOUT a man.
- the claim that "the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can", is also false. Nobody has yet created an artificial egg. That does not mean it cannot be done. And nobody has yet produced artificial DNA for a man, only a bacteria. So this is not even relevant for human reproduction.
But of course as you have already said, this article was not about logic, reason, or science. It is just about saying insulting, degrading, slanderous things about the male sex.
The NYT link is already gated (NYT login required). It seems many such articles linked by MRA blogs vanish from public sight. This is a good sign.
Cannot open the article???
It says I have to log in.
Who needs men anyway, now that there are no more dinosaurs to saddle and break?
to read the article, cut and past the link to google, erase all the url info at the end, and lots of hits will come up, some of which will access the article - this always works. notice, lots of links also to lots of sites talking about this pap. hey, do we need to go ahead and make the biology departments of universities a branch of the women's studies department now? maybe the entire university should simply be a place of women's studies, with various branches of academics under the purview of feminist departments? should we go ahead simply embrace this next logical step right now?
Mr. Price says that being the head of the Innocence project, he might be simply saying these things with his tongue firmly in cheek. It might give more exposure to MRM?
As for Barry Nolan mentioning your blog, he seems like just another crank.
You can also just register with NYT, Login and then click on the link from this blog post.
All you need to do is give a temporary webmail account and a choose a password.
There is no fee.
Post a Comment
<< Home