Feminists Want to Save Men and Boys From Themselves

This article was originally published at the Washington Examiner.

A new book, For the Love of Men: A New Vision of Mindful Masculinity, begins like this: “There is no greater threat to humankind than our current definitions of masculinity.” [Note use of the word “humankind,” rather than “mankind.” That’s the first indication you’re about to read something steeped in ideology rather than in fact.]

Touted in the media by Thrive GlobalGlamour, and other predictable places, it is authored by self-proclaimed feminist Liz Plank. The book is marketed to “women looking to guide the men in their lives and men who want to do better and just don’t know how.”

Can you imagine if the sexes in that sentence were reversed? For “men looking to guide the women in their lives and for women who want to do better and just don’t know how.”

Would never happen. But it gets a pass when it’s directed at men.

Unsurprisingly, Plank uses the new guidelines put forth earlier this year by the American Psychological Association that warn of the so-called dangers of traditional masculinity as the foundation for her book. This is unfortunate for Plank, since the APA’s guidelines have been brilliantly debunked by some of the best free-thinking scholars.

A feminist telling men how to be men is like a drunk telling a pilot how to land a plane. The premise of Plank’s book is that there’s no such thing as male traits. The thoughts and behaviors of men are not innate, she insists. They’re learned. She claims:

It starts when we equate emotion with weakness and direct boys to display strength no matter what. It shows up in the way we expect and encourage girls to show their true emotions while we demand that boys hide them from us. It reveals itself in the way we’re more comfortable with the image of a boy playing with a toy gun rather than a boy playing with a toy doll, because we’re more comfortable seeing a boy hold something that kills rather than something that cries.

Perhaps Plank imagines herself a maverick, but she’s making the same tired argument feminists have been making for decades: gender is a social construct. That too has been widely debunked, such as here, here, and a thousand other places.

I’m tempted to defend Plank on grounds of ignorance. At 32, she has clearly absorbed the feminist propaganda with which she’s been raised. More importantly, she does not have children, yet she claims to know precisely what boys need.

Plank’s misguided assessment of how parents raise their kids reminds me of a story Steven Rhoads wrote in his book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, about one of the mothers he interviewed who described her “Herculean effort to bring up a peaceable male three-year-old in left-leaning Berkeley.”

At home, the only television this mother’s son watched was Sesame Street. There were no toy guns in his home or in the homes of his closest friends. The local toy store didn’t even carry toy guns. Nevertheless, the boy seemed to be obsessed with guns. He quickly learned that tinker toys make wonderful guns, and one of his male friends found that even waffles could be used to shoot his dad at breakfast.

That is the nature of man. Boys, as a rule, don’t sit still and absorb (that’s why they’re doing so poorly in schools, particularly those without recess, while their female counterparts are doing just fine). They act. Boys like to build things, make things, and even kill things.

This is not 100% true for every boy or man, but it is true for most. That Plank’s “research” for her book is predicated on a visit to Washington Square Park in Manhattan where she interviewed what appears to be mostly gay men doesn’t change this fact.

The part Plank does get right is her recognition that men and boys are struggling and are in need of help. But the idea that feminists can help them is comical. Feminists are the cause of the predicament boys and men face, as they’ve successfully sold the false narrative that men are, and always have been, women’s greatest enemies.

“Women have been hurt and harmed by men for centuries,” writes Plank.

The relentless drumbeat of “men bad, women good” has wreaked havoc on men, on women, on families, and on society. The idea that the very people who caused the damage can also be the cure is madness.

Can anyone say Stockholm syndrome?

Suzanne Venker

Suzanne Venker is an author, columnist and radio host known as The Feminist Fixer. She helps free women from feminism so they can find lasting love with men. Suzanne's newest book, WOMEN WHO WIN at Love: How to Build a Relationship That Lasts, will be published October 2019.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. D says

    I’m actually just curious. I was married for 18 years. I am at the tail end of my devoice and I have been wanting to date. I am a people pleaser by nature wich I think is the biggest reason as to why I fear rejection. I take care of myselfe and i have a decent job. I first found my wife in 2003. Things have changed a bit since then. I’m handsome and i carry myself well. I listen to woman talke on social media and it seems split to me. When they talke about gender it suggests to me that I no longer have to buy the drinks or chase and ask for a number, basically hound a woman. But when I engage these dating sites all I hear is how ower woman still want to be treated like they were before. I make all the moves i have to buy the drink i have to make the first awkward first liner. Just curious and confused.

    • jean-pierre mercier says

      look up dr. shawn t. smith’s book the “the tactical guide to women”. and rollo tomassi’s “the rational male”. try to avoid our traditional male mistakes. make the woman a complement to your life, not the focus.

    • Momwtrmn says

      I think a lot of the answer you need comes from knowing what kind of woman you’d like by your side: one who is an old-fashioned sort with conservative ideas on gender roles or one more feministic and liberal. Be the sort of man who draws the sort of woman you prefer.

      Also, being single and focusing on who you are might be in order. Maybe?

      Best wishes!

    • Parrish says

      Have you ever seriously asked yourself what you want from a relationship? When I finally did, at age 40, I realized the answer was, “Well, nothing, really.” So I stopped looking for one. Might that be an option for you?

      • Brent says

        And nothing of value is what so many men get, nowadays. I will say there are some women worth marrying. My nephew found one. And she is very pleasant.

    • Farahnaz says

      You’re wanting to date. Do what they did 70 years ago- tap your network of female relatives. Tell them what you seek.
      1. Good health
      2. Pleasant.
      3. Not a feminist- expressed positively, she has to have a heart, and care about people.
      4. Traditional
      5. Respects men

      you know, get really detailed, in what you seek. If one relative gives you a feminist land whale, who has the courtesy of a table saw, hates men with a passion, you know not to listen to her again.
      Go SLOWLY. Don’t just hop into bed with them. Spend some time. Women wear a mask, on the first few dates. See how she treats people. Listen to her talk. If it’s all about material stuff, bitching, how other people did her wrong, you know to ditch her fast. Learn to listen to your gut. If a woman doesn’t feel good, claim you feel sick- as you do- and get out fast. Go beta, and seem weak.

  2. Ed says

    I’m willing to put up with a lot of pure nonsense from women that try to appear “reasonable” when defending decisions that were clearly based on nothing but hormones and emotions, but there comes a point when even MY tolerance is exceeded and I just walk away.

    I think more and more men are reaching that point and simply walking away from women in general. At work, they no longer give deference or even benefit of doubt.

    They (I) avoid social settings where women that might be “looking for men” are present and I no longer date because women are simply no longer worth the trouble.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one that has gotten fed up with the whole “woman empowerment” movement that has proven more harmful to society, families, men and even those women that actually believe in and practice old-fashioned femininity. Today’s feminine women (those that choose to wear dresses and heels in public and to make an effort to look their best when in public or with a man) will likely find that the men they are working so hard to attract are now skittish and avoiding ALL women for no other reason than the influence and intrusion of feminism into male-female relationships.

    • Anastasia says

      Talk to women running matching businesses, that is, that match women with men, for relationships. Their number one problem… wait for it… is finding men who want to be in the pool.

      • Ariana says

        Yeah, I know a woman who runs a business like that. On the side. And many of the women who come to her are utterly clueless, about what it takes to maintain a responsible relationship. She can’t hurt their feelings. She has to offer classes, and trainings, for them. She has to help them deal with addictions. She says she feels more like a social worker, than a matchmaker. She also teaches hypnosis. The women all want the prince RIGHT NOW, without having to work on themselves at all. They have nothing to offer, other than sex that isn’t very good for the man. They can’t understand that when Gramma was younger than they are now, gramma knew how to run a household- which is a small business. Gramma knew how to repair clothing, cook from a recipe- not a box, do small repairs, and do many, many other tasks. These women have no idea how to give of themselves, all they know how to do is to take. This woman does the matchmaking on the side. It is a money loser, for her, because of the high cost of educating these women in the basics. She does it as a sort of service.

        • Mary Margaret says

          That’s true- marriage IS a small business. There is income, outflow, and service. And just like EVERY small business in the world, the partners are complementary, NOT equal. There has never been a business where two partners were equal. Ever. Not even with twins. Everybody has strengths, and weaknesses, and ideally partners balance each other.

    • Kevin says

      Study this guy’s comments. Women have a Vernier scale, with several thousand degrees. Men have an on/off switch. This guy is saying his relationship switch is off. Men can do that. And more and more are. Five friends sliced and diced in divorce court- say. Marriage switch? Set to “off”. False rape accusations? Avoid any woman that has bad behaviors. Bar pickups are notoriously baaaaaad, tolerable really under the influence of lots of alcohol. Feminists are the Einsatzgruppen, of the left. These were the teams that went in behind the Wehrmacht troops, and killed civilians, and particularly Jews. Some Wehrmacht troops in Russia and elsewhere refused to kill civilians, and got away with it. But they were tarred with the taint of the SS, and Einsatzgruppen. French troops in Germany, at the end of WW II, gave Waffen SS men the choice of being shot, or joining the French Foreign Legion. Many joined. And the FFL troops marching in Paris, when the war ended, often were former SS. This is as ironic as seeing a feminist in her late 30’s, or 40’s, who thinks she is going to find a rich prince. The college I went to was full of them. They all had a thing going with alcohol, had nasty moods, were borderline sociopaths where they weren’t full blown psychopaths, and were remarkably unpleasant people. Smarter men wouldn’t even engage in small talk with them.

  3. MalcolmN says

    I would ask however, who imposes the definition of masculinity? If she actually had a point- should this not be an attack on mothers, and primary teachers? Seriously – who tells boys they should not cry? Who is it that utterly dominates boys lives in the crucial early years? Who is it that actually exhibits the behaviors that feminists push as toxic masculinity? Hmm – oddly – sons of single mothers. So – if she has a point (big if) should that not be seen as an indictment of women?

    • Jerry says

      More than half of all boys grow up without a father. Boys in elementary school have teachers that are 90% female. So I can’t understand why we aren’t living in a paradise- women do all this instruction, so what’s the problem?

    • Mark says

      That is true. The worst exhibition of negative masculinity is in the ghetto- where the percentage of single parent families- mostly female parents- is the highest. Listen to rap lyrics, if you doubt me.

      • Evelyn says

        Maybe feminists want to be treated like bitches and hoes, like disposable sex toys. They must want it, or they wouldn’t be working so hard to take ghetto culture out to the world.

  4. Dad says

    Thanks for your hard work and great articles Suzanne. Your work gives me hope that we might reach some equitable accommodation between the genders.

  5. Ris_Eruwaedhiel says

    The feminist movement was a outgrowth of the Black civil rights movement like the suffragette movement was of the abolitionist. The core principle of the present age is equality: the belief in human sameness and the denial of human difference. The reality is that there are innate differences not just between individuals, but the sexes, races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. This is accepted in dogs and cats, but somehow we must deny or explain away the observable reality of different types of individual and group behavior and achievement.

    Liberals find this belief convenient because of their desire to shovel people around like concrete in order to build a new society.

    This is what you are up against: Equality, the great god of our age. May the idol be toppled into the abyss.

    • Dori says

      There is a place where absolute equality has been achieved. You can find one of these places within easy driving distance from where you live. They are called “cemeteries”. And that is exactly where feminists want to lead the country. Maybe that’s why they favor abortion so much, what better place to start with creating equality, than in the womb.

      If you build two identical houses, across the street from each other, they will have different operating characteristics. And men and women are far more different from each other. In the womb, female fetuses have their arms higher than do boys.

    • Mary Ann says

      Equality.

      The story of Procrustes talks about this. A giant wanted all people to be of equal height. So, anyone who came to his house, was put in a bed. If they were too tall, their feet were cut off. if they were too short, they were put on a device to stretch their limbs, which was quite painful. If they were just right, they could leave, as they met his standards for equality.

      You’ll see the term “Procrustean bed”, used. And that is the equality they want.
      Whatever happened to diversity? Diversity is good, diversity is everywhere in nature. Huh? SYstems that are healthy are diverse.

      There are cultures that enforce diversity. Nazi Germany was one. And those who didn’t fit the bill, were killed, or put in concentration camps. Stalin and Mao did the same thing. We have to understand that these people who want equality have no morals, or qualms, about causing suffering, as they pursue their unreachable goals, on the backs of innocents.

    • Mark says

      Not liberals- progressives. Progressives have some fantastic leaders among their numbers- Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and many others. Liberals did some good. Progressives are basically evil, the pure expression of evil.

  6. David says

    I say let her spew her propaganda and when she is 45 or 50yrs old, she will be complaining and regretting about a) going through divorce or b) never getting married.

    • Mark says

      She’ll almost demand that society provide her with a prince, to lavish love, money, and attention on. There is only one problem with that. Those princes have options. And chastity, like a monk, is preferable to being involved with a woman like that. I foolishly married a woman who turned out to be a feminist. I had to play some serious mind games, and mess with her head, to finally get her out of my life, at minimal cost. They don’t just have no value, they have negative value, they take far, far more than they give, when they give anything at all. She will be in the same position as the homeless guy I have 50c to, yesterday, on the street- the same marketing position. Except that, because she’s a woman, women will listen to her and cluck about the sexist society that made her that way, as if she had no part in destroying her value for relationships. And she’ll be put on welfare, so that men STILL have to support her, out of taxes.

  7. Erica says

    A feminist telling men how to be men is like a drunk telling a pilot how to land a plane. The premise of Plank’s book is that there’s no such thing as male traits. The thoughts and behaviors of men are not innate, she insists. They’re learned.

    A drunk telling a pilot how to land a plane.
    A truck driver telling an Explosives Ordnance Disposal tech how to defuse a ticking bomb.
    A drug addict in withdrawal, telling a surgeon how to do brain surgery.
    A young woman of 17, after her father was just told by a Navy officer, at 11 PM in a gas station in a troubled DC neighborhood, that the smartest thing my father could do would be to get out of that neighborhood as fast as legally possible, telling her father that “Oh just be nice to them, and they’ll be nice to you.” [true story]
    A barber telling the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff how to handle a military campaign
    A presidential candidate, who put several hundred classified emails through an unsecure server, [any one of which, had a military person done it, would have landed that military person in Ft Leavenworth for 20 years,], being let off because there was no bad intent.
    A college professor with no experience of the wilderness, lecturing guys in the northwoods on wilderness survival
    A woman’s studies professor saying anything at all
    A gay person with no experience in hetero relationships giving advice to married men/women couples
    An indian in the Amazon jungle lecturing on how to survive in an arctic climate (actually, he might do ok, since he’s smart enough to adjust to the environment)
    A bricklayer advising an engineer how to design an ocean liner

    Animals have innate male traits, as any wildlife biologist can tell you. So why wouldn’t humans?

  8. Caroline says

    Feminists want rights, but no responsibilities. Responsibility is, however, what gives life meaning. Young men understand this- which is why they flock to Jordan Peterson. Men only get responsibilities, though, and have no rights vis a vis women, and in other parts of life. Homer Simpson, fool that he is, is still responsible to his family.

    Men are offered a worse and worse deal, in marriage. Which is why so many men are walking away from it. Men who have nothing to live for stay Peter Pan. The alternative to values/responsibility is low grade pleasure- it happened to Pinocchio, on Pleasure Island. Videogames are more and more popular. Men will carry a heavy load- IF they get to pick which load. Unemployed middle aged men… go for opiates, to deal with their chronic pain. Telling young men GROW UP, and DO SOMETHING USEFUL, is incredible- the young men are saying “really? I can do that?” It’s like the ne’er do well, who decides to enter the military, and discovers that service is a lot of fun. And that’s what we need, in society, to solve the problems.

    In puberty, women get more neurotic, depressed, and anxiety. Men get addicted, ADD, and so on. You could argue that there aren’t many differences between say a six year old girl, or boy. Men get bigger at puberty, taller and heavier, with higher upper body strength. Women attack husbands more than the reverse- because nothing is going to happen to them. Women are more aggressive in relationships.
    The cost of sex for women used to be higher; pregnancy in traditional societies, for a single woman, is a problem. Women’s nervous systems are adapted to the mother/infant dyad, not to women. Women caring for an infant under 9 months, and mostly that is women. Babies are very demanding, even at night. It’s a load. An infant under 9 months is never wrong; parents have to always respond. Women thus must be very sensitive to threats in environment. The disadvantage is that this temperament is not so useful, in dealing with adult men in the workplace.

    I know a Hispanic woman, who had to dump a drunk. She had kids. One was male. She knew she could not coach her son. She was careful to get him into the Boy Scouts, and other places, where responsible men were around. She understood what feminists cannot understand. Boys are not girls, with an extra appendage, and small breasts. Feminism is an outstanding example of the triumph of ideology over reality.

  9. M. Bayram says

    It’s crazy. The same women who are brainwashed at universities to hate men are complaining that men don’t approach them anymore.

    Even hardcore feminists prefer traditionell masculine men over feminized soy boys as a recent study suggested.

    I think women shoot themselves in the foot by supporting a movement which is not about equality of opportunity anymore.

    Biological women are already in the crosshair of new intersectional feminists who want to erase the rights and sheer existence of biological women.

    And the majority of women are sleeping while they vote for democrats.

    • Dave says

      Yeah, I’ve seen that, too. Those same women who complain about the patriarchy, march in take back the night gatherings, engage in serious man-hating… complain that men won’t approach them. Let me modify that. That alphas, the princes, won’t approach them. It’s the equivalent of a Nazi complaining that Jews just don’t want to be friends with them. Feminists can’t seem to understand that a decade, or two, of running hate for men through their system, leaves residual effects. A 19 year old lad probably won’t be that sensitive to it. A 25 year old man will be sensitive. A 30 year old man will sense it from 50 feet away, and evade it. You, as a man, can test this principle. Put on a tall cone-shaped hat, and drape a sheet over your head, with eyeholes. Wear a white robe. Put a KKK badge on. Then try to hit on black women. It’s the same idea.

      Women do not understand the pigeon principle. Run into a group of pigeons resting, and all take flight. Freeze in place, for a while, and a few pigeons may come back. Keep running into the group of pigeons- and in a short time, the pigeons just fly away. Though when I look at the ratatattoed, overweight, bitchy, entitled women that seem to make up a large part of colleges now, wooooh- I just want to throw up.

      Many years ago, I rode a greyhound bus, to Florida. At some point in Georgia, a man got on, who was drunk. He was boasting about his sewer-sucker business, trying to hit on a woman who seemed pleasant, if clearly somewhat nervous- as he was getting drunker and drunker. It was clear that the woman just had to endure him, till the next stop, where she could ask the driver to move her elsewhere. Now reverse the roles- imagine the feminist as the drunk, hitting on a guy who just has to endure her until he can get out of the area. That’s what it’s like today. Even a wedding ring isn’t necessarily enough, to keep these women away from me.

  10. Erika says

    Feminists Want to Save Men and Boys From Themselves

    Hmmm. Does this mean feminists want to save men and boys from feminists? Now that would be a worthy cause. or does it mean feminists want to save men and boys from those same men and boys? Now that would be fascism. We’ve gone from the “Jewish problem”, of WW II Germany, to the “men and masculinity problem”, of a similar fascist regime, it appears. Maybe we could go back to the idea of people choosing their own course in life? Because maybe they know what is best for them? Sort of like what the country was founded on?

  11. Anna says

    For the Love of Men: A New Vision of Mindful Masculinity, written by a feminist.

    Feminists do not love men. They hate, despise, criticize, demonize, hurt, and do damage to men, but in no way at all, could they be said to love men. This vision is a pipe dream, probably inspired by overconsumption of 1,3,3,4 tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana.

  12. Erin says

    The Nazis saved Europe from the Jewish conspiracy.
    The Bolsheviks saved Russia from the kulaks.
    The Communist Party in China saved CHina from the Kuomintang.
    It must be true- they all worked so hard to save their respective countries, and killed several million people in the process.
    And now we have feminists saving us from masculinity.
    What could go wrong here?

  13. Gloriana says

    “A Washington state supreme court has ruled it’s illegal
    for a parent to eavesdrop on their children’s phone con-
    versations without their consent. So the state is telling
    parents they can’t listen to “their” kids on the phone
    they pay for. And of course, once the kid commits a crime,
    who does the state blame? The parents.” –Jay Leno

    “There are more important things in life than money – but
    they won’t go out with you if you’re broke.” –Unknown

    “It is only possible to live happily ever after on a day-to-
    day basis.” –Margaret Bonnano

    I had just moved to an address between Sunrise Avenue and
    Sunset Blvd., one of Sacramento’s major streets, and was
    explaining to a clerk where my home was located for billing
    purposes. “I live between Sunrise and Sunset,” I told her.

    “Oh, honey,” she knowingly replied, “we all do.”

    ***

    A grandmother overheard her 5-year-old granddaughter playing
    “wedding.” The wedding vows went like this:

    “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may
    be held against you, you have the right to have an attorney
    present. You may kiss the bride.”

  14. Linda says

    “she does not have children, yet she claims to know precisely what boys need”.

    That says it all. Having children changes your perspective forever. Here’s a sampling:

    The following are different answers
    given by school-age children to the given questions about their mom:

    Why did God make mothers?
    1. She’s the only one who knows where the scotch tape is.
    2. Think about it, it was the best way to get more people.
    3. Mostly to clean the house.
    4. To help us out of there when we were getting born.

    How did God make mothers?
    1. He used dirt, just like for the rest of us.
    2. Magic plus super powers and a lot of stirring.
    3. God made my mom just the same like he made me. He just used larger parts.

    Why did God give you your mother and not some other mom?
    1. We’re related.
    2. God knew she likes me a lot more than other people’s moms like me.

    What ingredients are mothers made of?
    1. God makes mothers out of clouds and angel hair and everything nice in the
    world and one dab of mean.
    2. They had to get their start from men’s bones. Then they mostly use string I
    think.

    What kind of little girl was your mom?
    1. My mom has always been my mom and none of that other stuff.
    2. I don’t know because I wasn’t there, but my guess would be pretty bossy.
    3. They say she used to be nice.

    How did your mom meet your dad?
    1. My mom was working in a store and dad was shoplifting.
    2. Mom said her friends hooked her up to meet dad, but I don’t know what they
    hooked her up to.

    What did mom need to know about dad before she married him?
    1. His last name.
    2. She had to know his background. Like is he a crook? Does he get drunk on
    beer? Does he make at least $800 a year? Did he say NO to drugs and YES to
    chores.

    Why did your mom marry your dad?
    1. My dad makes the best spaghetti in the world. And my mom eats a lot.
    2. She got too old to do anything else with him.
    3. My grandma says that mom didn’t have her thinking cap on.
    4. Mom said because love is blind.

    What makes a real woman?
    1. It means you have to be really bossy without looking bossy.
    2. You have to know how to be mean sometimes but still know how to give hugs
    and kisses.

    Who’s the boss at your house?
    1. Mom doesn’t want to be boss, but she has to because dads such a goofball.
    2. Moms know how to talk to teachers without scaring them.
    3. Dads are taller and stronger, but moms have the real power cause that’s who
    you gotta ask if you want to sleep over at your friends.

    What does your mom do in her spare time?
    1. Mothers don’t do spare time.
    2. To hear her tell it, she pays bills all day long.
    3. They have to drive kids around all day.

    What’s the difference between moms and grandmas?
    1. About 30 years.
    2. You can always count on grandmas for candy. Sometimes moms don’t even have
    bread on them!
    3. When mom says you can’t have a popsicle before dinner grandma says you can.

    Describe the world’s greatest mom?
    1. She would make broccoli taste like ice cream!
    2. The greatest mom in the world wouldn’t make me kiss my fat aunts!
    3. She’d always be smiling and keep her opinions to herself.

    Is there anything perfect about your mom?
    1. On the inside she’s already perfect. Outside, I think some kind of plastic
    surgery.
    2. Diet. You know, her hair. I’d dye it, maybe blue.

    If you could change one thing about your mom, what would it be?
    1. She has this weird thing about me keeping my room clean. I’d get rid of
    that.
    2. I’d make my mom smarter. Then she would know it was my sister who did it
    and not me.

  15. Elena says

    Mark Twain already reviewed the book, it seems:

    Mark Twain, American writer (1835-1910)

    “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

    “The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.”

    “To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence.”

  16. Elena says

    Bad things happened, in the old days. There’s no question about that. One thing that has greatly deteriorated, though, is the cushion against those bad things: community. The media have made people afraid of each other. The breakdown of marriage has led to more psychopaths walking the streets. Lonely people take more drugs, watch more TV, buy more stuff they don’t need. And Americans are lonelier, than they used to be. Which is a pity, because problems at the local level are usually solved by groups of focused people, working together.

    DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN…?

    All the girls had ugly gym uniforms? It took five minutes for the TV warm up?

    Nearly everyone’s Mom was at home when the kids got home from school? [3/4 of youth crime is committed between 3:30 and 5:30 PM, on weekdays. Why might that be?] Nobody owned a purebred dog?

    When a quarter was a decent allowance? You’d reach into a muddy gutter for a penny?

    All your male teachers wore neckties and female teachers had their hair done every day and wore high heels?

    You got your windshield cleaned, oil checked, and gas pumped, without asking, all for free, every time?
    And you didn’t pay for air? And, you got trading stamps to boot?

    Laundry detergent had free glasses, dishes or towels hidden inside the box?

    It was considered a great privilege to be taken out to dinner at a real restaurant with your parents?

    They threatened to keep kids back a grade if they failed. . . and they did?

    When a 57 Chevy was everyone’s dream car…to cruise, peel out, lay rubber or watch submarine races, and people went steady?

    No one ever asked where the car keys were because they were always in the car,
    in the ignition, and the doors were never locked? (There’s a good measure of community health)

    Lying on your back in the grass with your friends and saying things like, “That cloud looks like a ”
    and playing baseball with no adults to help kids with the rules of the game?

    Stuff from the store came without safety caps and hermetic seals because no one had yet tried to poison a perfect stranger? (What kind of families do psychopaths grow up in? Usually, none. Or maybe a very dysfunctional one. But Americans don’t ask how problems arise, they prefer to bitch about it being someone else’s fault)

    And with all our progress, don’t you just wish, just once, you could slip back in time and savor the slower pace, and share it with the children of today?

    When being sent to the principal’s office was nothing compared to the fate that awaited the student at home?

    Basically we were in fear for our lives, but it wasn’t because of drive-by shootings, drugs, gangs, etc. (all of which come from youths who grew up in single parent families, or no family at all)
    Our parents and grandparents were a much bigger threat! But we survived because their love was greater than the threat. (Yes. There were problems, but children were more loved, then.)

    Send this on to someone who can still remember Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, Laurel and Hardy,
    Howdy Doody and the Peanut Gallery, the Lone Ranger, The Shadow Knows,

    As well as summers filled with bike rides, baseball games, Hula Hoops, bowling and visits to the pool,
    and eating Kool-Aid powder with sugar. Didn’t that feel good, just to go back and say, “Yeah, I remember that”? (Communities had problems, of course. There was secret abuse. But at least we had communities, back then. Nowadays, we have laboratory rat cages filled with people, and a media full of crap)

  17. Ray says

    I read Eugene Maurey’s books, some years ago. They talk about spirit depossession, a modern version of exorcism. Those who have read the Bible will recall that Jesus took the spirits out of a crazy man. Now I prefer a more quantum approach. I prefer to see these as discordant frequencies, that need to be phase conjugated. Well, whatever. I’ve run into people doing this work, and took their trainings, including one from a disciple of Maurey. Vianna Stibal’s books talk about a method for doing this, also. Since this is working in an imaginary realm- it’s real, but not the physical world- I prefer to have helpers, some might call them angels. Oh, you say, why is this important. Well, getting drunk, as what was his name, Ritchie- saw in his near death experience- opens you up to entities, to what used to be called bad spirits. My father drank alcohol, and when he was taken over by what appeared to be some very frightening entities, I knew fear to my core. There are people who intentionally invite in entities, but that’s another story. Drugs open up the energy field in the same way. Again, what I’m saying here is only models, there may be a better explanation. The models work for me. Every feminist I have every seen, has at least one of these entities in her, that I’ve found. They feed on the negative energy, they are a parasite. Do you use electricity? AC Current was developed by a guy who worked with some very positive entities- Nicola Tesla. Robert Louis Stevenson asked for a new chapter of his book, each night, and woke up to basically dictation. Every indigenous culture I’ve ever studied had a way to deal with such entities. Anyway. Feminists are possessed. Now I can do a remote depossession- Vianna Stibal teaches it, Eugene Maurey teaches it, there must be at least 20 books on the subject, mostly by women. Here’s the problem- the feminists stay open to entities, and more come in. The Waffen SS had formal ceremonies, to invite in low grade entities, which is why they could kill so many innocents in cold blood. Himmler had a special castle just for this. Getting into that outfit before the war was not easy; one had to kill a Jew, or gypsy in cold blood. Not for nothing did they have a death’s head insignia. I know only what I perceive. I see these very discordant frequencies in every feminist I have ever met. I clean them out, remotely- even VIanna says to do that. This is a very good reason for men to avoid feminists. This is why they are so selfish, immature, and so on. They are confined to their small selves, in Service to Self- only. They have no idea what Service to Others is. Feminists act like they are possessed. And they are. I use a pendulum to test, or do it on the fly. I avoid them.

  18. Jill says

    Women have been hurt and harmed by men for centuries,” writes Plank.

    Just as men have been hurt and harmed by women. But these women never bother looking at the other side of the coin. If you make all women saints, you have to make all men devils. Not a good model for the world.

  19. andrea says

    Like many isms before it (Communism, socialism, cults), feminism seeks to dismantle the traditional family unit for its own gain. Why? To the ism, old loyalties are like bad habits interfering with an individual’s ability to pledge unwavering allegiance to authority. Isms want control, but families tend to put family members and their needs before the demands of the ism, reducing the ism’s power and influence and therefore undermining its control.

    Throughout history, the family has been “the ultimate and only consistently subversive organization… the enduring permanent enemy of all hierarchies, churches and ideologies,” notes Ferdinand Mount, author of The Subversive Family. Mount describes the sequence past isms have followed once they “have hardened into orthodoxies:”

    First, hostility and propaganda to devalue family. The family is a source of trouble. It could distract apostles or potential apostles from following the new idea. The family is second-best, pedestrian, material, selfish. Alternative families are promoted — communes, party cadres, kibbutzes, monasteries.
    Feminist icons have not tried to hide their antipathy for the family unit:

    Gloria Steinem described marriage as “an arrangement for one and a half people.”(In her case, I don’t doubt it- she is a half-wit)
    Andrea Dworkin wrote, “How can anyone love someone who is less than a full person, unless love itself is domination per se?” (There’s a great healthy example of womanhood. Adolf Eichmann was more pleasant than she.)
    Kate Millett wrote, “so long as every female, simply by virtue of her anatomy, is obliged, even forced, to be the sole or primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.” (Which shows how sick she is. All indigenous culture women welcome child care)
    Betty Friedan wrote, “women who ‘adjust’ as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ‘just a housewife,’ are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps… they are suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.” (It’s clear what she wants to do to women- and men.)
    Linda Gordon said, “the nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”
    Robin Morgan said “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” (The only way to destroy the inequities is death. Works good for that.)
    Mary Jo Bane said, “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” (Even the kibbutzes gave that up)
    Vivian Gornick said, “being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”
    Helen Sullinger said, “We must work to destroy [marriage]… The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men… All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women.” (Adolf Hitler was less radical than this woman)
    You’d think women seeking high-powered careers would be glad to enjoy less competition from other potential workers…
    “Not if you understand the feminist ideology,” say Suzanne Venker and the late Phyllis Schlafly, authors of The Flipside of Feminism,
    Feminists realize all too well that they can never achieve a level playing field in the marketplace as long as their male competitors have the advantage of homemaker wives… Women on the left know that in order to get ahead more easily, they must deprive men of their advantage in having stay-at-home wives. The desire to eliminate the full-time homemaker has been feminists’ goal all along. The need for a second income was never the goal.
    Feminism has made some “progress” over the last several decades. If you look at the poorest and least socially mobile areas in America, you will notice one variable consistently lacking: fathers. More specifically, mothers who are married to the father of their children. Over the last few decades, the birth rate for unmarried women in the US has risen steadily from 18 percent in 1980 to 41 percent in 2012. (Visit one of those ghettoes. During the day. And look at what feminism hath wrought)
    Alarmingly, the majority of moms believe that absent or uninvolved dads can easily be replaced themselves or another man (see here and here) despite the evidence that stable marriages lead to happy, healthy, and motivated kids, which leads to stronger communities, more opportunities, and greater equality: (being unrealistic is so common)

  20. andrea says

    continued
    Physical health: Compared with children in intact, married families, children in cohabiting households (one parent and their girlfriend or boyfriend) are ***more likely to have a physical or mental health condition*** and are ***three times more likely*** to suffer physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Unhappy couples have depressed immune systems and their children have elevated stress hormones. Stress is regulated by social systems; the brain regions involved in social relationships are the same ones that control stress response. They develop together, and therefore development problems in the stress response can interfere with the development of social and emotional functioning and vice versa.
    Mental health: Children raised by single moms are more likely to be on ADHD medication and are more likely to need professional treatment for emotional or behavioral problems
    . As adults, children who grew up with married parents are less likely to have mental health problems (especially true for daughters).
    Poverty: Both physical and mental health are influenced by socio-economic status. Children of single parents (4 out of 5 of which are women) are far more likely to grow up in poverty and have lower rates of upward mobility than children of married parents (see here, here, here). The current welfare system discourages single mothers from establishing a stable two-parent household despite a portion of welfare funds allocated to promote this kind of family structure. This is because women who marry or maintain a home with the biological father of their children can face the reduction or loss of their benefits. In turn, children who grow up on welfare are more likely to grow up and be on welfare themselves, continuing the cycle.
    Teen pregnancy and crime: Daughters of single mothers are more likely to engage in early sexual behavior and become teen moms, which, in turn, makes them more likely to rely on welfare and their children less likely to grow up with their fathers. The majority of inmates grew up without their fathers (see here and here).
    Drugs and alcohol: Children of single parents have significantly higher rates of drug use. Teens who have less than three family dinners a week are four times more likely to use tobacco, more than twice as likely to use alcohol, two-and-a-half times more likely to use marijuana, and nearly four times likelier to engage in future drug use.
    School: Children of married parents have fewer learning disabilities; score higher in reading, higher in verbal and problem-solving skills, better on most academic measures, and better on the majority of social competence measures. Children who grow up without fathers are less likely to attend college (especially true for sons).
    Future income: One of the longest running studies on adult development, the Harvard Grant Study, found that men that had warm childhoods — those who had close relationships with their parents (who were married) and at least one sibling — make 50 percent more money than their peers who grew up with separated parents or in hostile households.
    Given the information above, it could be argued that if feminism actually cared about helping all women, it would advocate for father involvement, so no daughter would grow up disadvantaged and every son would be a strong and capable partner to those daughters. Yet, while feminism purports itself to be the movement for equality, it is at best silent when it comes to father’s rights.
    In fact, feminist organizations have opposed efforts for equal custody. For example, Marc Angelucci, an attorney and member of the National Coalition For Men, told me:
    In 2005 we introduced a joint custody bill [in California], but feminist groups opposed it and lobbied various other groups like the state bar to oppose it. Feminist groups like California National Organization for Women have fought us not only on joint custody but also on paternity fraud legislation, move away issues, and inclusion of male victims of domestic violence in state funded services.

  21. andrea says

    Why would feminists try to prevent father involvement — the very thing that insulates against poverty and inequality? Because, they profit well from it! There would be no more need for the vast network of nonprofit organizations, not to mention life-long careers (and paychecks), which only exist because enough people bought into and continue to buy into the myth that women have it worse off than men (that myth debunked here).
    Feminism needs gendered issues. Feminism doesn’t want you to know that ***women are about as likely to abuse their partner as men*** (see here and here) or that boys are at least as likely to suffer sexual abuse as girls (see here, here and here) because it would impact their funding.
    It is not in feminist institutions’ best interest to solve anything. In order to maintain a steady flow of cash, they now seek to preserve their own existence by perpetuating myths and inventing problems where there are none to reassure their followers that there is still an “us” and a “them.” Sexist pockets anyone?
    Intact families, married mothers and especially stay-at-home-married-moms are feminism’s number one enemy. Here are a few reasons why:

    Whereas feminism minimizes the role of nature, telling us that the differences between the sexes comes down to social conditioning, mothers notice innate differences between boys and girls. Psychologist Steven Pinker may have said it best: “It is said that there is a technical term for people who believe that little boys and little girls are born indistinguishable and are molded into their natures by parental socialization. The term is ‘childless.’”

    Married women tend to vote conservative while unmarried women tend to vote liberal (see here and here). Liberal votes = more $ for feminism. And more feminism = more liberal votes. It’s not a coincidence that former President Obama created a White House Council on Women and Girls but refused to create a White House Council on Men and Boys.

    3. Married women are happier! A recent survey revealed that unmarried and working mothers are less happy than married and non-working mothers.
    Over the past few decades, as technology liberated women, feminism told women, “you can have it all,” emphasizing equal rights while minimizing equal responsibilities. Of course, no one can have it all, but “trade offs” doesn’t sell as well. And women can’t hear what men don’t say; men didn’t tell women that work is often mind-numbing and unfulfilling. In order to dislodge homemaker wives from their families, feminism devalued their role (i.e. telling married women they’re half a person). Thinking men got the better deal, many stay-at-home moms were resentful, and divorce rates accelerated. Today, women ask for 7 out of 10 divorces (see here and here).

  22. andrea says

    continued
    After divorce, these moms, while happy they had kids, express regret about their choices. They wish they had maintained a career so that when they separated they weren’t in such a tough position, having been out of the workforce for too many years to readily catch up with their peers. These moms then send inconsistent messages to their daughters; on the one hand they say they wouldn’t trade their kids for anything, but on the other hand they send the message that a career is more sustainable than having a family.

    The deeper message that is passed on is guilt; when moms talk about how their lives would have been different (better) had they stayed in the workforce or communicate to their daughters that they do not want them to repeat “their mistakes,” they are indirectly telling their children that their existence is part of the mistakes, and has impeded the success they could have had. Thus the children must live according to her wishes as a form of payback.

    Combined with the slew of celebrity mothers, such as Sofía Vergara, Gwyneth Paltrow and Heidi Klum, being toted as “superwomen” who do it all and have it all, and still look hot at 40 and 50 years old, feminism’s messages implanted via Mom leaves ordinary young women feeling anxious and confused, and eventually leaves them feeling disappointed when they realize they won’t have it all — and not even much of what they had imagined and were told their lives would and should be.

    The problem with these messages given to young children is that they erode the underlying beliefs necessary for a trusting and caring relationship to be built around. In short, it’s ***divorce training***.
    Daughters who do not take on a full-time career can feel like they are betraying their mother’s wishes or the sisterhood. They don’t want to be vulnerable with their partners and pull away when conflict arises, thinking about plan B. Sons observe their mothers and wonder if they’ll ever be able to make a woman happy; how could they when Dad failed miserably in doing so?

    On the other side of this sad ledger are all the dads who have watched their marriages disintegrate into a series of alimony and child-support payments. In one long-term study, just 10 to 15 percent of men won in custody battles. The ones who win are usually the ones who can afford lawyers. Even then, many men end up feeling like they are spending their lives working for people who have been turned against them. Some even go to prison for falling behind on child support payments — for example, in South Carolina, 1 out of 7 inmates is there for that very reason.

    Obviously, this path we are headed down is unsustainable. If enough men opt out or get put in prison, we’re all screwed. Yet, men, like all people, respond to incentives. Why should they participate in and contribute to a system that doesn’t reward them?

  23. andrea says

    continued.
    Self-marriage is where we’re headed if these trends continue. (It’s already started) This illustration might as well be called “Feminist Party 2025”
    One could argue that feminism is now on the cusp between the first sequence Ferdinand Mount outlined and the second, which is:
    Reluctant recognition of the strength of the family. Despite all official efforts to downgrade the family, to reduce its role and even to stamp it out, men and women obstinately continue not merely to mate and produce children but to insist on living in pairs together with their children, to develop strong affections for them and to place family concerns above other social obligations. I wonder how feminists would convince, say, gorillas, to end their family ties?

    If feminism follows a similar path to the isms that came before it, it will die a slow death. Mount describes what usually happens next:
    Third, collapse of efforts to promote the alternative pseudo-families. Communes, crèches, kibbutzes, monasteries and nunneries lose the enthusiasm of their founders and decay. Either their numbers dwindle, or their members become cynical and corrupt, or both. The only special communities like that, that stick around for a long time, are deeply spiritual.
    Fourth, a one-sided peace treaty is signed. The Church or State accepts the enduring importance of the family and grants it a high place in the orthodox dogma or ideology. That does not mean the family is allowed to live its natural life. On the contrary, the Church or State still insists on defining what is good for the family and what makes a Good Family.
    Fifth, history is re-written to show that the Church or State always held this high conception of the family. The family is redefined as essentially Christian, or Communist, or Fascist or whatever — despite the fact that the earliest apostles are on record as having loathed and despised the family.
    Sixth, the family gradually manages to impose its own terms. The constricting, unnatural or impractical terms which were forced upon it gradually buckle under continuous social pressure — until the guardians of Church or State have no choice but to yield, while busily continuing to rewrite history and to maintain that the new concessions were always somehow implicit in the True Faith.
    Interestingly, Mount’s sequence resembles the five stages of grief, outlined by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross:
    1. Denial (propaganda)
    2. Anger (hostility)
    3. Bargaining (treaties)
    4. Depression (loss of enthusiasm)
    5. Acceptance (family imposes its own terms, history is re-written)
    At some point, when feminism alienates enough of its less radical members with its increasing irrationality and unsubstantiated claims, when the system can no longer support feminism’s constant consumption without contribution, it will be forced to move from denial and anger into the “bargaining” stage.
    Looking at feminism through this lens, one wonders what feminism is grieving. My sense is that feminism is grieving the fact that it does not control mother nature. The instances where feminism accepts biological differences as a factor in outcomes are instances where feminism can benefit. Otherwise, feminism refuses to acknowledge that female and male brains have differences and that our different hormones drive us to have different preferences, approaches and values. But by telling women they must live as men do and compete with men, feminism has set itself up to fail, because male biology is advantaged over female biology in a capitalistic system.
    It’s no wonder then, that feminism is a thinly veiled version of Marxism, blaming the “patriarchy” in place of capitalism. Perhaps it wouldn’t be such a problem if women perceived there to be enough “good men” to go around. But reading men’s forums, it now seems like there are no longer enough “good women” to go around, giving both sexes little incentive to compromise or improve themselves.
    One wild card that has prolonged the denial and anger stages and will continue to prolong all the other stages are technological and medical advances such as the birth control pill. None of the other isms had that variable, or the prospect of artificial wombs.
    Yet, even with “equalizing” technology that asserts control over mother nature, it is likely women and men will still want to have sex with each other and live together. Which makes me wonder who or what is really behind the movement, since the trajectory of feminism doesn’t improve the dynamic between women and men in the long-run. I guess, the who or what probably doesn’t really matter, because the result will be the same — a divided, untrusting population that can be easily conquered.
    If you wanted to divide a population for your own gain, a great way to do that would be to tell one half that the other half is willfully oppressing them, and then make the former believe that they are inherently better people than the latter, that the latter is untrustworthy and doesn’t deserve to be in charge. Another way would be to infiltrate the education system – in 1968 liberal professors outnumbered conservative professors at a ratio of about 3 to 1 on college campuses; today they outnumber conservative professors 12 to 1.
    While feminism in the West may be approaching the bargaining stage, the denial and anger stages are being exported around the world. Because feminism divides men and women and keeps poor people poor, it is an ideal ideology to impose on developing nations in order to continue to exploit and control them, all under the guise of liberation and justice.

    Michelle Obama says 62 million girls are not in school. Never mind investing anything in those girls’ brothers and future husbands, because disenfranchised groups of men with nothing to lose has always ended well…
    Feminism could also be a tool to push for open borders. As social trust decreases (see here, here and here), more men are choosing not to marry and are opting out of workforce. Currently 1 out of 6 young men is not employed or is incarcerated — a 45 percent increase over the last three decades. This decline justifies an increased need for more immigrants, especially as women’s fertility levels stay below “replacement” rate.
    So what are we to do? For men, first consider these statements:

    Next, consider what D.H. Lawrence wrote in A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover:
    It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State… Do we then want to break marriage? If we do break it, it means we all fall to a far greater extent under the direct sway of the State.
    You have a choice to improve the system, or walk away from the system and perhaps get slightly less taken advantage of. You can mentor the younger generation, or let them flounder. The latter option will indirectly create more adherents to feminism, making life even more difficult for the next generation of men.
    For women, it is my hope that those reading this will be open to considering whether or not feminism is truly serving their best interests and the greater good, whether compelling women to live like men is productive or damaging, whether creating a culture of victimhood is empowering or just a way to excuse personal responsibility and accountability (which I think actually build confidence in one’s abilities). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When everyone is a victim, who will pick up the tab?

    I believe it is technology, not feminism, that has and will continue to do more to offer women flexibility than anything else. The Internet in particular will continue to open up a multitude of opportunities and options that only existed as some far off dream decades ago. Washing machines, ready made clothing, and other machinery, etc ended a lot of drudgery for women. I for one, hope we get our act together before we collapse under the weight of our short-term thinking and selfishness.

    Albert Speer, Hitler’s economic planner, noted that at the upper levels of the Nazi party, there was no real feedback. It was all confirmation bias. Which meant that some truly stupid decisions were made. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing with feminism.

  24. andrea says

    And men who listen to her, for a short time, before getting out of the area, think, but don’t say, “Sure sucks to be you! Look what you created for yourself!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: