How do civilizations commit suicide? By elevating women at the expense of men. It doesn’t have to be this way.

2 Jan

menImage

Oh dear.  Camille Paglia is back in the news, pointing out some icky truths that make feminists stamp their feet and pout, as icky truths tend to do.

In a three hour interview, Paglia points out just what we’re getting wrong, culturally.

The diminished status of the military means that the cultural elite has no military experience – no explicit training in analysis, strategy, defense, offence, subterfuge – any of the tactics that permit an understanding of how to face down evil and triumph

This leads to the idea that everyone is basically nice and if we’re nice, they’ll be nice right back.  North Korea: just be nice and everything will be okie-dokie.  How’s that working out, Jang Song Thaek?

 “These people don’t think in military ways, so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we’re just nice and benevolent to everyone they’ll be nice too. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.”

Women in particular are oblivious to the dangers of the world, and insist that they have every right to put themselves in vulnerable situations and when bad things happen, they cannot and must not be held responsible for that:

“I believe that every person, male and female, needs to be in a protective mode at all times of alertness to potential danger. The world is full of potential attacks, potential disasters.” She calls it “street-smart feminism.”

Men are neutered, essentially from birth, and taught that their energy and desire to interact physically with the world is a mental disorder that requires medication. “Sit quietly and color, boys, and please don’t build projectiles with your crayons”.

“Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It’s oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys,” she says, pointing to the most obvious example: the way many schools have cut recess. “They’re making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters.”

Primary school teachers, who tend to have backgrounds in the Barista of Arts academic tradition (degrees in reading, dancing, feeling, etc.) dislike teaching hard facts and quantitative skills (math is hard, Barbie!), and instead focus on “female values” such as sensitivity, cooperation and socialization. And it doesn’t get better in higher education, either.

 “This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness.” The result: Upper-middle-class men who are “intimidated” and “can’t say anything. . . . They understand the agenda.” In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by “never telling the truth to women” about sex, and by keeping “raunchy” thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.

The loss of the manufacturing base has stripped men of role models, leaving only the sports arena where traditional masculine virtues are openly celebrated.  Being faster, stronger, smarter and more relentless than the opposition is a undeniable good.  Of course, there are plenty of arenas (tech development, finance, high level corporate management) where men are as competitive and ruthless as ever, but the difference is that we only celebrate the sports heroes.  Corporate heroes make the ladies feel a bit queasy, and they only like the soft, gentle ones.  Bill Gates and his geeky ways are okay.  Mark Pincus, not so much.

Pincus obsessively tracks analytics for all staff, sets harsh deadlines, and aggressively pushes his employees to meet them.

And how is that working out for Pincus?

The data pipeline allows Zynga to fine-tune its games to optimize engagement, helping the company attract some 270 million unique users each month, many through Facebook. The four-year-old Zynga, which has emerged as the Web’s largest social game company, recorded $828.9 million in revenue in the first nine months of 2011, more than double the period a year earlier. It is also the rare Internet start-up that is profitable, earning $121 million since the start of 2010.

Oh well then.  Let’s strangle that puppy on the doorstep.  What could go wrong?

Paglia notes that it’s not just men and boys who suffer when the demonization of men and masculinity becomes culturally de rigeur.  She throws a bone out to the rich, white ladies, too, because we all know that no one has cornered the market on suffering quite like rich, white ladies.

Women, particularly elite upper-middle-class women, have become “clones” condemned to “Pilates for the next 30 years,” Ms. Paglia says. “Our culture doesn’t allow women to know how to be womanly,” adding that online pornography is increasingly the only place where men and women in our sexless culture tap into “primal energy” in a way they can’t in real life.

A lifetime of low-fat yogurt, Pilates and porn.  Gosh, the tears are welling up here.  It’s so heart-rending.  Poor, poor elite white ladies.  That’s just terrible.

Whatever can we do?

Paglia has a few ideas:

A key part of the remedy, she believes, is a “revalorization” of traditional male trades—the ones that allow women’s studies professors to drive to work (roads), take the elevator to their office (construction), read in the library (electricity), and go to gender-neutral restrooms (plumbing).

Indeed.  We’ve argued that exhaustively.  Let’s stop proclaiming men obsolete and start recognizing that our entire economy and civilization depends on men continuing to believe that their role is to provide and protect, even in the face of a culture that actively denies them basic human rights, such as reproductive freedom, equal treatment under the law and the right to genital integrity. The ingratitude of feminists is staggering, and Paglia is not shy about pointing it out, either, although she does frame it in terms of women only.  Well, Paglia does call herself a “feminist”, so that doesn’t really come as a surprise.

In her view, these ideological excesses bear much of the blame for the current cultural decline. She calls out activists like Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf and Susan Faludi for pushing a version of feminism that says gender is nothing more than a social construct, and groups like the National Organization for Women for making abortion the singular women’s issue.

By denying the role of nature in women’s lives, she argues, leading feminists created a “denatured, antiseptic” movement that “protected their bourgeois lifestyle” and falsely promised that women could “have it all.” And by impugning women who chose to forgo careers to stay at home with children, feminists turned off many who might have happily joined their ranks.

Well, this stay at home mother would never have joined their ranks in a million years, largely owing to the fact that feminism outright lies to women and actively attempts to deny women what they most desire: a life with children and family. A movement that has at its heart the destruction of women’s most deeply held desires does not come across as “pro-woman” to me.

  “I want every 14-year-old girl . . . to be told: You better start thinking what do you want in life. If you just want a career and no children you don’t have much to worry about. If, however, you are thinking you’d like to have children some day you should start thinking about when do you want to have them. Early or late? To have them early means you are going to make a career sacrifice, but you’re going to have more energy and less risks. Both the pros and the cons should be presented.”

Paglia’s prescription for how to “fix” feminism includes expanding membership to stay at home moms and focusing on true injustices by tackling matters like rape in India and honor killings in the Muslim world.

That’s nice.  But it won’t “fix” feminism.  Feminism, which continues to trumpet that gender is a mere social construct and that the lack of female engineers and computer programmers is due to the fact that boys are mean, cannot be fixed.

Paglia is absolutely correct that in neutering the masculine, we are destroying our civilization.  But the solution is not more or better feminism.  We can take all the things we have learned from this disastrous cultural experiment and apply them to create a world of true diversity and equality.

The first step is to recognize that women have been elevated at the expense of men, a situation that was observed a long time ago.

Bringing the cultural conversation back to equality is the first step, and where we are right now.  We cannot effect any change until the need for change is acknowledged.  And then what?

Here are three strategies that could be put in place to dramatically reverse the decline we are all facing together:

1. Full reproductive rights for men

When men have full reproductive rights, and cannot be forced into fatherhood (as women cannot be forced into motherhood) a few dramatic changes will take place.  The era of the babymama will essentially evaporate overnight.  When men are given the same rights as women to choose fatherhood, all the incentives to trap men and extract maximum resources without consequence will be eliminated. The only men who will have child support orders enforced against them will be those men who have legally agreed, in writing, to father children with a particular woman.

We used to call that “marriage”.  We still can, but I see no reason why any sort of legal agreement to parenthood should not be enforceable.  And marriage itself is not a sufficient condition in which to enforce parenthood.  Couples who intend to be childless need to specify that legally. Every child must be wanted by both parents.  Every individual reserves the right to parent alone, but when that gargantuan task becomes even more difficult, we will see the rates of single motherhood collapse.

Men are grossly exploited by child support laws, and ending that is a matter of keystrokes.  Change the legislation and give men and women equal reproductive rights.

2. Separate school streams

Schools should fall into two categories:  those that emphasize qualitative skills with only a slight focus on quantitative, and those geared towards developing quantitative skills, with a correspondingly lesser focus on the qualitative.

In reality, boys will skew quant, and girls will skew qual, but there is no need to force anyone into any particular pathway. Boys who wish to study art and poetry and psychology will be permitted to do so and we will vigorously protect them from having their masculinity questioned or derided.  Girls who wish to study robotics and calculus will be permitted to do so and we will vigorously protect them from having their femininity questioned or derided.

Creating a stream of schools, from primary onwards, focused on developing analytical, mathematical, hard skills will bring men back into the teaching profession in droves, because they tend to be the ones who have those skills. At the secondary stage, the schools can split further into skilled trades and advanced analytics, both quant and qual.  Quant schools would feed programs in masonry, plumbing, carpentry on the skilled trades side, and STEM on the advanced analytics side.  Qual schools would stream into hairdressing, childcare worker, food preparation on the skilled trades side and all the liberal arts on the advanced analytics.

People should be free to change streams according to their own desires and talents.

This is not a physically hard system to imagine.  Germany runs an educational system that already does most of this in practice.

The opposition is entirely political and comes mostly from feminists, who cannot stand that the skills gap between men and women will be stark indeed when polytechs and vocational schools stand alongside liberal arts schools in the same numbers. And to be clear, this is not an argument that women are incapable of developing quantitative skills.  Perhaps they are, or perhaps it is merely a complete lack of interest: either way the outcome is the same.  It’s mostly men who pursue quantitative occupations and skills.

3. Financial incentives to encourage parents to care for their own children

The practice of allowing families to deduct child care expenses as a tax credit needs to end immediately.

The correct incentive is to allow families to income split as long as one parent is at home fulltime with children. A single earner paying income tax on $50 000 will pay more tax than two individuals earning $25 000.  Same income, lower tax burden.  Effectively, one parent should be able to pay the other parent for their services.  This not only incentivizes families to care for their own children, it offers a prestige and acknowledgement of the value of childrearing, something that is sorely missing in our culture.

Whether mommy or daddy stays home does not matter. The legal right to pay your partner for the work they do at home should be enshrined in law. Canada is slowly moving to make that a reality, but not fast enough.

Again, it is a simple matter of keystrokes to make this law.  The short term loss in revenue will be made up for by having a nation of citizens who understand what responsibility and obligation actually means, by seeing that a lived reality in their own lives, and who are growing up without the negative effects in social development that arise when children are parceled out to daycare institutions.

It’s really not that hard to reverse our decline.  The first two strategies require a close focus on the rights of boys and men in particular, while subtracting nothing from women. Give men the same right to choose parenthood that women already have, and provide boys with schools that match their strengths, whatever those might be, while not excluding girls in any way.

If we can get those first two right, the third one will become a saner, more reasonable choice for men.  It will restore reciprocity and interdependence to marriage, replacing the competitiveness and selfishness (mostly on the part of women) that currently reigns.

Paglia is right to highlight that we are in condition critical culturally, but her suggestion that a more inclusive feminism will light the way to salvation is ludicrous at best.

Focusing on the rights of boys and men is the way out of this mess. The good news is that this is not a zero sum game: enshrining the rights of men does not mean women will lose some of their rights.

The bad news is that women will have to surrender some unfair advantages.

  • They will no longer control men’s incomes by controlling reproductive choices.
  • They will no longer exclude men from appropriate training and education by eliminating male interests or attributes.
  • They will no longer control poor men and women by exploiting them for cheap domestic labor.

And they will gain some important advantages, too.

  • If women stay home to care for their own children, which were born in legal agreement with the father, they will be rewarded with an income, as agreed to by both parents.
  • If they choose to work, they can legally pay their partners to care for their children

It’s win-win.

And begins here. The MHRM.

We’re not just an advocacy group.  We’re a suicide prevention group.

And we intend to save our whole world.

Let us go forth with fear and courage and rage to save the world.

Grace Paley

And so we shall.

Lots of love,

JB

40 Responses to “How do civilizations commit suicide? By elevating women at the expense of men. It doesn’t have to be this way.”

  1. LostSailor January 2, 2014 at 20:15 #

    It’s a lovely idea, JB, but it’s going to be a hard-fought, up-hill battle and the feminists will scrap every step of the way.

    Why?

    You said it yourself

    They will no longer control men’s incomes by controlling reproductive choices.
    They will no longer exclude men from appropriate training and education by eliminating male interests or attributes.
    They will no longer control poor men and women by exploiting them for cheap domestic labor.

    Especially the first one. Feminists (and most women in general, whether they consider themselves feminists or not) will scream bloody murder at the thought of giving up not only access to a man’s assets and resources but control of his reproductive options. That been women’s primary weapon in the ever ongoing “battle of the sexes” since time immemorial.

    There may be some chance of changing the educational system and it’s not without possibility of changing the tax code to “pay” for the domestic work of a stay-at-home-partner (hell, you might even get feminists on board for that one, since that was one of the founding issues of feminism: that “housework” wasn’t paid work and therefore has no value). But the issue of reproductive rights and the “distribution” of a “father’s” assets to a woman is the capstone of change in this area, and it will be the hardest and last to be achieved, if we get to that point at all before feminism completely collapses and burns Western civilization.

    Oh, and Happy New Year to the entire Bitch clan. I trust 2014 will also bring home-baked cookies and cupcakes…

  2. Cadders January 2, 2014 at 20:49 #

    Your proposals and suggestions are rational, well thought out and cogent.

    And because of that I fear they are doomed to irrelevance.

    For, after 50+ years of creeping, insidious, feminism, it is men’s turn for an emotional response towards the opposite sex. Not one of rage or fury, of lashing out.

    One of simple disengagement. Silent. Hidden. And instinctive.

    I am not belittling the MHRM and the work that they (you!) do – I follow it with interest. But I feel it misses the point – more than human rights and legal equality, the thing that will return men to the traditional roles of provider and protector is respect.

    Masculinity accorded the respect it deserves from both men and women. The kind of respect that is earned, and rewarded.

    When, as a man, no matter how hard you work, study and sacrifice, you do not get due respect, BECAUSE you are a man, you simply disengage. The disengagement from women is already happening. And when men disengage from women, they automatically disengage from society.

    Men and women are complementary, opposites.

    Feminism triumphed when women joined together to moan, march and co-op the State to effect change. So it should come as no surprise that men’s response is to withdraw, disengage and abandon the support of the State.

    Seeking the changes you list is laudable and I support it. But I fear it has already been overtaken by a dynamic that can no longer be controlled.

    • El Bastardo January 3, 2014 at 17:59 #

      You are absolutely right. Canceling the welfare state is going to be hard, as feminists have smartly/wisely/evilly hitched their ride onto the backs of the elderly, minorities, and others to pave the way for their own man hating greed.

      If you attack one, they have efficiently guaranteed in the eyes of the others, that you are attacking all of them.

      It will be a hard fought battle, but it is doable with the right calamities happening, followed by a leader with newer, and better ideas rooted in sanity; that he/she can articulately point out with humor that silences feminist’s idiotic dissents. Without the above, we will never get what we want. Women have ruled the roost for centuries at least, if not forever. Feminists have swept that fact of history so far under the rug it does not exist in most human’s consciousness.

  3. Jeremy January 2, 2014 at 22:35 #

    When men have full reproductive rights, and cannot be forced into fatherhood (as women cannot be forced into motherhood) a few dramatic changes will take place. The era of the babymama will essentially evaporate overnight. When men are given the same rights as women to choose fatherhood, all the incentives to trap men and extract maximum resources without consequence will be eliminated. The only men who will have child support orders enforced against them will be those men who have legally agreed, in writing, to father children with a particular woman.

    In order for this to work, men of all marital situations must be given the option of contributing absolutely no taxes to single motherhood. The bargain must again be re-struck. You can’t allow any women to leech off of productive men without their consent or else there is no deal. Yes, this means a near total destruction of the single-mother-social-welfare situation. Sorry ladies, with all the birth-control available to you, you have absolutely no excuse for getting pregnant.

  4. FlybyNight January 3, 2014 at 00:24 #

    After being treated bad by female supervisors and in relationships…I pretty much have dropped out. For example..big snowstorm yesterday..car suck in ditch by side of road. I check the gender before helping out. I helped a man yesterday get his car unstuck. If it was woman I would just keep on driving by. These acts of kindness(or lack of) add up over time.

  5. Akhilesh January 3, 2014 at 02:57 #

    I love your Style of Writing…. Energetic, Confrontational as required and Definitely Judgemental where required…. Keep Up God’s Work…. Wish you a Happy New Year…

  6. Mike from the Pioneer Valley January 3, 2014 at 04:39 #

    I like Camille, a lot.

    But I don’t recall feminists outsourcing manufacturing or busting the unions that left the trades exposed to wage arbitrage.

    A free-market civilization plays rough. It doesn’t grant “men” any intrinsic value. “Men’s” work—all that construction that Camille reveres—is just a commodity in this civilization. It’s the work of the herd. The work of the creative few, the deciding caste, is to question the verities the herd lives by and see what can be thrown out to do the work faster, cheaper—or even if it needs doing in the first place. Nothing personal, and nothing sacred.

    This pairing of know-how and indifference is the value we’ve made sovereign. We’ve rationalized and defended every cruelty imposed by way of progress. This is the civilization that we men built. It was made to turn people into things, chew them up and shit them out. That civilization won’t die as long as it’s got a steady stream of people hard enough, ambitious enough, aggressive enough, and cruel enough to carry on the Western project. If those are now female-bodied people, the civilization is still on course and the project hasn’t missed a beat. It changed the bodies, not the roles or castes that keep it going.

    I’m surprised that Camille, as a student of big history (a la Gibbon, Nietzsche, Spengler, Toynbee), didn’t acknowledge that the trajectory of this civilization is to destroy tradition, upend “nature,” atomize “society” on its way to its ultimate goal of sovereign individuals free of whatever supposed bonds of biology or custom constrained less evolved, less creative people. Only the mission, the project matters. Not “men” or “women” or “the family,” “nature” or “values.” The West is the West precisely because it can transcend and dispose of those things on its way forward. It can choose to junk them because it is fearless, curious, and creative, and because its chief drive is toward power and dominion. That’s unbelievably brave, braver than any other civilization has ever been.

    Sacrifices and destruction are intrinsic to our civilization. We can’t go back. Whatever is lost is dead. If it’s dead, it was unnecessary.

    We can rubbish feminism all we want, but unless we’re equally prepared to critique the Western project, then all we can do with integrity is to move on.

  7. lanthanumentertainment January 3, 2014 at 05:58 #

    the world used to have gender equailty… and when people started to go for “gender equality”, they actually destroyed the “equality”

  8. Alex January 3, 2014 at 08:43 #

    it is baffling that people think that the solution to feminism is more feminism

  9. noir33 January 3, 2014 at 13:16 #

    On the subject of male reproductive rights; all child births should be accompanied by DNA test at the hospital.

  10. Darwin January 3, 2014 at 14:21 #

    I mostly agree with you JB, but…but….you are advocating for men to casually “lay” with women who are not their wives, and then “choose” not to be fathers or pay child support? Do they go all brain dead when it comes to inserting a penis into a woman? No consequence? What part of this is called “responsibility” on his part? The way I see it, if men didn’t penetrate women who are not their wives, it would be impossible for these “elevated status women” to get a dime in child support. Why lay all the blame on the women, after the fact? Where is the lecture to men to “keep it in their pants”…because…it starts there, does it not? Woman can’t rape man. Do we sterilize men who father a baby out of wedlock? Would that stop all the baby mama drama?

    • judgybitch January 3, 2014 at 14:45 #

      I doubt the clock can be rolled back that far.

      And if “keep it in your pants or face the music” is an argument that men must always accept the consequences of sex, then the same argument applies to women.

      No abortion. No adoption.

      Face the consequences.

      I like my plan better.

      • Darwin January 4, 2014 at 15:45 #

        Before abortion; that was the fact. Have the baby or give it up for adoption. DNA testing wasn’t around. Years ago, during the Roe vs. Wade arguments, my tough as nails wild west Grandpa told me I was crazy to support abortion; not for religious reasons but because it benefitted men who want to screw around with no consequences. Maybe he was on to something; I don’t know. If every woman who became pregnant was a “gold digger”; there wouldn’t be so many abortions, right? If John Edwards could have talked Riele Hunter into an abortion; he could have been President. But in your scenario; John Edwards shouldn’t be paying child support. Men who have wives and children can, and do, father babies with their side-pieces. Surely you don’t advocate putting all of the blame on the woman?

        Child support laws were written because the state doesn’t want to take care of all the bastards. The problem with the law is it really hurts middle class men who want to do right, and it sucker punches really wealthy men. But for the vast majority of baby-mama-babies…Daddy doesn’t care because he knows the state will pay. Why not make it harder for “that” Daddy by making him sterile after the first go around?

        In reading the comments section, there seem to be a lot of men who don’t feel women are rational thinkers. I’ll go with that….so….shouldn’t we then put the onus on the rational thinker to. stop. before inserting that naked penis?

        I love your writing and thought provoking articles, JB. I agree with 90% of what you say. I feel I was you, only 20 years ago. I’m mellowing in my aging years. I’ve seen too much havoc created by both men and women to put all of the blame on one sex.

        • judgybitch January 4, 2014 at 16:02 #

          I suppose I view the situation through the lens of “responsibility” rather than “blame”. Of course, if men are permitted to choose parenthood, then it stands to reason that women must have untrammeled access to abortion. If a man makes it clear he has no intention of supporting a child he did not intend, and the state only offers meager “prevent starvation” benefits, then rational women will end the pregnancy.

          They must be able to do that.

          Offering men reproductive choice may be the best way to secure abortion rights everywhere. Men will have a deeply vested interest in making sure women have access to those services.

          I despise abortion, but see it as a necessary evil. The least bad option.

          I disagree vehemently that women are not rational thinkers. Feminism as an ideology advances that argument to justify women being able to hold other people responsible for their own choices, and I find it insulting and degrading.

          Women are perfectly rational. They respond to incentives, just like everyone does.

          I argue that we need to alter the incentives and women, being 100% rational, will make different choices.

          • Darwin January 6, 2014 at 04:30 #

            You wrote a blog regarding women–tourists. It isn’t reasonable to behave like a tourist in a foreign land. I am not blaming. I am saying, is it not reasonable for a man to act on the same principle; all women are not willing sexual vessels who will terminate a pregnancy should one occur. Others will cry rape. There are strong biological roots for a woman to keep and have a baby. That isn’t blame, that is common sense. To roll the dice, especially if a man has a fortune, is crazy. Yet, men do this all the time. Women crave security. I don’t blame them for that. Men crave sex. I don’t blame them for that. I understand it. Humans still act on instinct.

            We are not the same; women can’t “be” it all. Some one has to raise those babies. Resources are scarce…women will compete for them. If women are scarce; men will do the same.

            Not all men want to be in their child’s life. For every MGTOW post, I can cite 100s of stories of women who can’t get baby Daddy or ex-husband to come to a birthday party. Sex isn’t recreation. Before the pill and “love is free”, there was no such thing as casual sex. “Casual” sex is an oxymoron. (Unless cash changes hands…and the majority of men can’t afford that or are repulsed by that option.)

            Choose wisely. And even then, trains collide, accidents happen, we all have to deal with the hand we are dealt.

        • LostSailor January 5, 2014 at 16:39 #

          Darwin, as JB notes, this isn’t about blame, it’s about responsibility.

          Under the current regime, when it comes to reproduction, women have rights, and men have responsibilities, responsibilities enforced by the state that are frequently irrationally skewed to women’s benefit and can result in loss of a man’s rights up to and including debtor’s prison. Such a regime provides incentives for women to irresponsibly bear children because they know they can tap the resources of both the state and the father to support themselves. It provides incentives for wives to ditch their husbands if they desire, but still have access to his assets while often denying him access to his children.

          Providing men with more equal reproductive rights–the right to disclaim fatherhood when he has no voice in a woman’s reproductive decisions–would provide different incentives to women to be more responsible for those decisions.

          As for whether women are rational thinkers, they certainly can be, just as men can let emotion rather than reason rule their decisions (see the stock market). The problem is that it is entirely rational for women to make reproductive choices given that they know they can force a man to provide for them without anything in return.

          Unfortunately, women–whether feminist or not, whether a parent or not–know they have a good thing going and will not willingly give up the benefits the current regime provides. Giving men more equal reproductive rights is just a start and an uphill battle at that. The other option is to outlaw abortion, which is unlikely to happen.

      • jabrwok January 4, 2014 at 20:16 #

        Where do you get the idea that there would be no adoption if women are required to accept the consequences of their own behavior? Adoption was available before feticide was legalized, so why should that change?

        You say further down that you see abortion as a “necessary evil”, but I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that it’s necessary. Adoption is a perfectly viable alternative if the father doesn’t want responsibility for the child, and the nine months of discomfort might well teach the mother to be more careful about how readily she invites future acquaintances into her bed.

    • LostSailor January 3, 2014 at 15:29 #

      Why lay all the blame on the women, after the fact? Where is the lecture to men to “keep it in their pants”

      Indeed, JB’s point is the salient one.

      This is not an argument feminists can use, and they know it. Because with that argument comes the end of female reproductive choice, the primary pillar of feminism. They can’t allow that to happen. I’ve even seen Manjaw Mandy Marcotte dance around this one, tacitly agreeing with the idea of men’s reproductive choice, though expressed in her usual ridiculously extremist terms.

      So, yes, so long as women have the right to terminate a pregnancy or obligate a man for support, both without his consent, men should have the right to opt out of fatherhood on the same terms.

      Why blame women “after the fact”? Because they have the choice. Where’s the lecture to keep their legs closed? Oh, right. The feminists don’t want to hear that one…

  11. John mws January 3, 2014 at 21:04 #

    The idea of the “professional housewife” where she is paid to be a mother by the father/husband if she decides not to have a career outside the home needs more thought. It is an old Femimist idea to pay wives a wage. I think this would give women even less repect from men. She becomes a open prostitute/childcare person, especially if the income is her’s to do as she pleases with. This is similar to muslim women who can keep all personal income to themselves. It would make marriage a business deal only.

    Why would he not also get paid for being a father? Women, we are told, already spend 80% of family money with no state interference required. The feminists would just love coming up with ridiculous rates of pay/compensation that would over pay the mothers/fathers who do the housework/childcare and the other parent would have no way of enforcing any “quality control” on the “work” performed and could be asked to pay more than they even earn themselves. What happens if the wife goes on stike?

    A better idea would be for legal way for couples to control joint accounts and hence family income. You need three accounts, 1) for monthly family budget for the household bills, food, transport. 2) family savings for future costs, e.g. home improvements, holidays, kids clothes. And lastly 3) personal accounts for transfer of equal funds for each others unhindered personal spending. The couples would have to both sign/approve to transfer funds between the accounts. The total family funds would first go into the savings account with standing transfers to move funds to the household fund for most known costs.

    If they have equal personal budgets no one can complain about financial abuse by the other. Any accounts before the marriage would still be kept separate and not be used for future divorce proceedings. That way both benefit equally from the marriage and a choice for divorce does not have any right to alimony or a share of pre-marriage assets from the other. Only assets bought during the marriage should be assessed and any value added to pre-assets e.g. property.

    The way divorce works at the moment mainly men are asset stripped, especially assets not acquired during the marriage, due to short term marriages and child custody. Without proven abuse joint custody should be standard and therefore no child support required by either parent. If women do not get any financial incentives to divorce they may take better decisions about marriage and loyality to a family and take in seriously again. The argument then is again what happens to the person who gave up a career? They effectively chose housewife as the career, if they start the divorce they should not be able to complain for compensation or at best If they are divorced then they should be given some compensation to support them training for a career so they can support themselves and account for the child support for this limited period only, but that should not be like alimony, open ended. If both of the couples have had periods as stay home parents this should be used to adjust any compensation the other would get at the end of a marriage.

    Does any of that sound more equatable.

    • judgybitch January 3, 2014 at 22:30 #

      I didn’t really mean pay the other spouse. It’s in spirit only. The point is that their taxes would be lower, which is an incentive to have one spouse at home.

      Sometimes the best split won’t be 50/50 but some other combination.

      It’s more about the government offering an incentive for families to care for their own children.

      • John mws January 4, 2014 at 22:48 #

        The biggest thing a government could do for families is make it law to have to pay at least a living wage. We live in an age when two adults have to work to pay the household bills/rents/mortgage. This has only happened since feminism. Both men and women earn massively less in real terms that back in the 1960s/70s. Without this, any law/scheme to compensate a stay a home parent so they are not at the good grace of the other, it is not going to affect many people I am afraid.

  12. Liz January 3, 2014 at 22:04 #

    Well, I for one do think the currect paradigm is bad for women (that doesn’t mean it isn’t worse for men). Feminists hate the world they’ve created. And it shows.

    I mentioned on another forum our community elementary and middle schools don’t permit the boys to play ball during recess. All balls are banned…no matter how small. When the boys would try to play, the girls would congregate into groups in the middle and get in the way. Instead of telling the girls to get out of the way of the ball games and use up the vast rest of the playground to stand around and talk, they made the boys stop playing ball. Also against the rules….playing on the monkey bars, or most of the rest of the playground equipment. The “no tolerance” for pretend cops and robbers/soldier/warrior were bad enough, now there’s no tolerance for climbing on playground equipment or playing ball (too many of the whippersnappers haven’t been drugged into dullness yet).

    • Jax January 5, 2014 at 07:00 #

      Are you serious? This sounds like the beginning of an Orwell book.

      • Liz January 5, 2014 at 16:42 #

        Yes, I’m serious.

  13. Bob Wallace January 3, 2014 at 23:23 #

    Until the early 20th century, in a divorce, the children almost always went to the father. Bring that back and it would fix a goodly number of problems.

    “Without men, civilization would last until the next oil change.” – P.J. O’Rourke.

  14. Eric January 4, 2014 at 00:13 #

    Problem: “The diminished status of the military means that the cultural elite has no military experience”

    Solution: http://milvets.columbia.edu/

  15. GeoffSmith January 4, 2014 at 16:51 #

    But JB,
    Naomi Wolf says to be selfish, greedy, sex hungry, and dismissive towards men so that they stop oppressing women with standards of beauty instead of letting women rule civilization. How does your post square with that? (BTW, she really does argue basically that. Beauty Myth, 291)

  16. Bob Wallace January 5, 2014 at 15:56 #

    Mythologically women have been seen as either nurturers or destroyers. So, if they don’t nurture, they destroy. Feminism, in whatever form, denigrates mothers and so wants to destroy men.

  17. Guber January 5, 2014 at 18:00 #

    I agree. I am so glad to find, for the first time ever, someone, anyone, who speaks what I have been thinking about, developing and speaking for some months now. I fully support this line of thinking.

    Instead of post-divorce slavery for the man to suddenly pay the ex wife for her home making services and her “lost career” and her companionship, and, and, and …. the economical implications of the marriage are to be built consciously into the constitution of the union up front.

    In my view, marriage has long lost its traditional meaning, since it has been blatantly abused to create a gold mining opportunity for women, especially pretty ones. Gay marriage has only been a marginal nail into the coffin. The reality of Divorce Corp. has done the main work in destroying marriage as a moral institution, and has done so since the second half of the 19th century (i.e., 1850 onward). This means: we can rescue it by being honest. We realize that marriage always has been a civil economic arrangement to form a family that would produce children and thus form and renew the orderly society.

    So, the basis of every marriage must be a conscious contract with terms that alone define any and all mutual responsibilities. Family law and family court would be dissolved altogether. All disputes would be handled in the well understood framework of contract law.

    Since the decision to have children would be a mutual one, when that decision is made, the contract can be amended. In general amendments of the contract are possible and necessary to adjust for new life situations which have not been foreseen. All those ideas about “marital estate”, “community property” and “equitable distribution” would be stricken and replaced by a default of individual property (the name on the title actually means something) and the contract of the union would describe clearly and freely how the partners intend to be economically responsible for each other.

    This includes a monetary transaction from the income earner to the one who will earn less income outside the house.

    So, yes, Janet, I totally support you, and I am very, very interested to discuss this more with you and people who desire to be serious and brutally honest about the economic transaction that are an essential foundation of the formation of a family unit.

    The good news is that we can tell men and women that contract law is already available today as a tool to build a more conscious constitution of one’s own family. We should write pamphlets, articles, a book, and give seminars about this to young men in particular. In my view today (>40 with good kids, success, and a self-defined uncontested divorce :(, and one count of experience in executing a pre-nuptial contract) the pre-nuptial contract is a must for every self-respecting man. It is a key step in forming a good relationship with a woman, exactly because of the anxiety that exists around it. Exactly because the proposal for a pre-nup may be the trigger upon which she might be stomping out (the deep fear of most men who are in love). And this is why it is so important.

    So, my point is, the awareness and deliberateness is already available today (with limits, much less severe than the nay-sayers among the AWALT-MGTOW people paint it.). And we need to work this out to create a movement of self-responsible men.

    This is far less a matter of the tax code by the way. In fact, for tax purposes the benefit of marriage are much less clear. This is because the marriage penalty really punishes you (I have lived it when the tax code forced me to file married filing separately without allowing me to claim any dependents, that hurt!) Part of our book project would be to roll some numbers through the tax calculator and prove to people that a wide range of options exist in the tax code, and this calls into question the sensibility of even marrying in the first place.

    Which brings me to my last point. Why don’t we libertarians invite and teach people how to take their liberty freely starting today without waiting and whining to daddy state to fix it for us? It is simple, and I am speaking as a religious Christian, so hear me out:

    1. boycott the state-granted label of “marriage”, it’s been ruined since the mid 1800s.
    2. celebrate your commitment to each other in a well thought out contract.
    3. if you are religious, find a Church and minister who understands that God’s blessings do not depend on daddy state to define the framework.

    In other words: completely implement for yourself the separation of church and state.

    This is where today we can take back our liberty and self-respecting men can reform the family system from within by making self-responsible choices.

    I am excited, and very serious, dear Janet, to develop these ideas further and really push them.

    PS: the school issue can also be fixed by responsible parents making responsible choices.

  18. pukeko60 January 7, 2014 at 03:14 #

    I wonder if we are going to get what Lenin called voting with our feet.
    Consider this: I’m raising two boys. in a non USA English speaking country. My advice to the boys about GF includes not sleeping with them (For religious and pragmatic reasons), checking their families out, and NOT DATING YANKS.

    Or Canadians. Or the English.

    Or anywhere else where you cannot protect yourself from the family court. There are legal ways to do that where I live.

    A number of men in the USA and England are marrying Poles and Asians…. to the point where, those of us (as I did) who fall in love with a woman who is from another race are assumed to have imported them. And this is going to increase.

    Why?

    Well… my son would tell you. Half Asian: likes European girls, but finds most US and Canadian women are not slim, not beautiful: he’d rather be with a local.

    The costs of marrying or shacking up with an American are becoming too high: and men do understand economic signals.

    So, if you (unfortunately) are American and a red pill woman, you are handicapped because most of your compatriots are not, and the well is poisoned. Which, by the way, is totally unjust, and a reason that yentas such as SSM will be needed in the USA.

    (correction, are needed in the USA. Right now)

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/i-will-betroth-you-to-me-in-faithfulness-and-you-shall-know-the-lord/

  19. Funktacular January 7, 2014 at 21:30 #

    The bit on Mark Pincus is painful and the article you cite is ancient bullsh*t. Pincus is a control-freak who has destroyed Zynga. It’s stock price has collapsed and its bleeding cash and talent like no one’s business. Men don’t micro-manage each other (it’s a respect issue) they way that Pincus does.

    • judgybitch January 7, 2014 at 21:42 #

      Interesting follow up. I just grabbed Pincus out of the air because of the success of Zygna. There are thousands of other tech start-ups I could have chosen. Most are run by men.

      More successfully than Pincus, apparently.

  20. Ndoki Hasaki January 10, 2014 at 18:28 #

    I’ll admit, being one to always seek a challenging debate I’ve all to often been in the equality vs feminism vs men’s rights argument, and all too often I’ve seen the inevitable conclusion that usually comes from it. It’s because of this that I’ve been hesitant to accept anything I’ve read on this site so far, let alone comment, but to see someone looking at the bigger picture, and championing not only the rights of women, but for all, is truly a breath of fresh air.

    This site has restored my faith in humanity, thank you.

  21. susanbotchie January 14, 2014 at 12:28 #

    Judgy, but men already have access to 100% effective birth control (and so do women). It’s called “keeping ones britches zipped up.” But of course, with masculinists and their female fawners, abstinence is too much like responsibility – best to project that off onto the single moms

    • judgybitch January 14, 2014 at 13:06 #

      But they do not have any right to mitigate against birth control failure.

      Women do

  22. Lean Back April 7, 2014 at 04:39 #

    JB: “But they do not have any right to mitigate against birth control failure.

    Women do ”

    Susan’s point was that they can mitigate against both birth AND birth control failure 100% by simply practicing abstinence.

    • LostSailor April 7, 2014 at 16:08 #

      By the same token, women don’t need access to birth control or abortion because they can mitigate against pregnancy 100% by being celibate. But you don’t hear women making that argument, do you? Perhaps it’s unwise to use it against men…

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. How do civilizations commit suicide? By elevating women at the expense of men. It doesn’t have to be this way. | Bydio - January 3, 2014

    […] ← How do civilizations commit suicide? By elevating women at the expense of men. It doesn’t have to … […]

  2. Not brute beasts | Dark Brightness - January 3, 2014

    […] When men have full reproductive rights, and cannot be forced into fatherhood (as women cannot be forced into motherhood) a few dramatic changes will take place. The era of the babymama will essentially evaporate overnight. When men are given the same rights as women to choose fatherhood, all the incentives to trap men and extract maximum resources without consequence will be eliminated. The only men who will have child support orders enforced against them will be those men who have legally agreed, in writing, to father children with a particular woman. […]

  3. The Pink Pill: Rarely Taken | RedPillPushers - January 9, 2014

    […] Why aren’t there more women becoming unplugged? Why are women staying immature and then being surprised about their harvest? Because every time a female Morpheus comes to offer you the Pink Pill, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,710 other followers

%d bloggers like this: