Human Nature Isn’t Toxic. People Are

This article was originally published at the Washington Examiner.  My co-author for this piece is Terry Brennan, co-founder of LW4SP.

So-called “toxic masculinity” is having a moment. The popular recognition of this intersectional feminist belief was exacerbated by the American Psychological Association’s “guidelines” for working with men and boys. These guidelines were compiled by the APA’s Division 51, “The Society for the Psychological Study of Men & Masculinities,” which deemed “traditional masculinity” harmful.

The distribution of the APA’s guidelines created significant controversy. Multiple psychologists stated the new guidelines followed ideological, rather than scientific, principles. Indeed, in its mission statement, Division 51 states that it “acknowledges its historical debt to feminist-inspired scholarship on gender and commits itself to the support of groups such as women, gays, lesbians and people of color that have been uniquely oppressed by the gender/class/race system.”

Meanwhile, the newly updated APA guidelines for Psychological Practice with Girls and Women strike a different tone. They read as follows: “Life experiences and contexts that continue to pose risks for girls and women are important for psychologists to understand, as they influence treatment, research and psychologists’ views of what are strengths and what qualifies as resistance. Of note, in some cultures, resistance is a healthy response to oppression.”

The message is clear: Men are the oppressors, and women are the oppressed. Boys and men should therefore have therapeutic treatment that includes a discussion about their “privilege,” while women should be encouraged to pursue “resistance.”

In other words, your sex dictates your status.

But does it? Are there not examples, and plenty of them, where women utilize their privilege to cause significant harm? Do women not have negative characteristics or behaviors which, if addressed, would result in a better society? Or are feelings of superiority, privilege, toxicity, bullying, harassment, shaming, and manipulation characteristic to only one gender?

As it happens, Meryl Streep just answered that question: “We hurt our boys by calling something toxic masculinity. And I don’t find [that] putting those two words together … because women can be pretty f—ing toxic.”

Anyone who believes that bullying, harassment, and shaming are specific to boys or male culture has clearly never met a teenage girl — or a woman who still acts like a teenage girl. Both men and women can behave in an aggressive manner; they simply express their aggression differently. Men are more likely to use physical force, while women and girls are more likely to use reputation destruction, innuendo, and gossip.

The group of women who’ve been the most successful with such female tactics are feminists. They represent toxicity at its finest, for their anger and aggression is cloaked in righteousness and fairness for all, when in reality they pass on to impressionable young women the idea that men are oppressors, and women are their victims.

Indeed, the list of things this group has labeled sexist include wages, air conditioninghouseworksnow removalAlexacountry musicNASA spacesuits, the WNBA and, well, everything.

It is impossible to live in modern America and not be bombarded with the message that men are bad and that women are good. This narrative seeps into one’s soul, causing women to be on constant guard and causing men to retreat from society altogether. It takes a force of willpower on the part of everyday folks to renounce this destructive theme.

But denounce it we must. For if men and women cannot get along, if they continue to use their nature against one another with bogus labels like “toxic masculinity,” they will never find their way to one another and will stop build families.

They already are. As of 2018 we have a record-high number of single, unattached Americans between the ages of 18-34, up from 33% in 2004. There’s more than one reason for this phenomenon, but at its core is the idea that women can’t trust or depend on men and must therefore live without them. Why would any smart woman hitch her wagon to someone or something that’s toxic?

The fallout of this narrative is simply huge. We cannot survive as a nation as long as it persists. “We’re all on the boat together,” said Streep. “We’ve got to make it work.”

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. “Female, educated, and perpetually single: Erica Morin at TEDxTexasTechUniversity”, is a fascinating youtube talk. A fairly bright woman, somewhat overweight, discusses how much she likes her job. She had a large list of qualities she wanted in a mate, which one by one fell away. She talked about how she felt about that. And she had a marketing message at the end, to sell herself.

    Here’s the problem. She’s in her 40’s. She’s somewhat overweight. She has a full time job. Of course she has some feminist ideas. Any man foolish enough to get involved with her is at her mercy, courtesy of divorce courts. I wonder how many months it would take before she started issuing ultimatums. Women like this tend to have lots and lots of resentment. A roll of the dice in Monte Carlo has better odds than getting involved with her. She loves her job. Great. Would that we could all be happy like this. I mailed a package at the post office, the other day. The clerk was a woman, a very pleasant woman, who smiles, and clearly wishes people well. She must be around 25. Her energy is incredible. If I were of her generation, well, ok, I’m not. Married life with her would be paradise. But women like her are rare, very rare. Most American women choose to be toxic.

  2. “As of 2018 we have a record-high number of single, unattached Americans between the ages of 18-34, up from 33% in 2004.”

    Edward I ravaged Scotland, in the 1200’s. He made examples of anyone who might even have a hint of opposing him. Which meant that people who might otherwise have been on the fence went to join William Wallace’s forces. Wallace was betrayed, and the Bruce carried on. Edward II basically gave up. Traditionally, it took a lot of societal pressure to get men to marry, and to stay married. Marriage was better for women than for men, even 150 years ago. Marriage is the only stable way to raise children well. But men have been made examples of. And they are moving away from marriage, just as Scots moved away from proud Edward. There are fewer men than women, above the age of say 30 or so, and this disparity grows, with age. Women get more and more interested in marriage, after 30, as men lose interest, after 30. Proud Edward hung bodies outside cities, as an object lesson, the same way men are hung up to bleed out, in divorce courts.

    “We cannot survive as a nation as long as it persists. “We’re all on the boat together,” said Streep. “We’ve got to make it work.” ” I would not have expected this from Meryl, though I welcome her statement of a very obvious truth.

    Native American elders are generally very low key. They share wisdom in small doses. For them, Respect is where it all begins. Rapport, and Trust, come next. Then comes real communication, and then working together. Humans survive by working together. Native Americans of North America generally say they learned how to be civilized by watching wolves. Wolves cooperate in incredible ways.

    The model for our current culture seems to be that of fishers, or wolverines- feral beasts with nasty tempers, that are left alone by other animals, out of fear.

    I know of only one way to break the deadlock. That is to be kind, where possible. People do not read books, they do not listen to spiritual teachers, they run with the herd. Mother Theresa had more wisdom in her than all feminists put together. People think she was poor. Look at the resources she commanded. She was the equivalent of a CEO of a corporation. She talked about people needing the love of family, and community. This is true, though no-one wishes to see this. Suzanne, perhaps you might put up a few quotes from Mother Theresa? I suggest that some of what she had to say is very relevant to this discussion, in a very positive way.

  3. Dances with Wolves was an interesting movie. The plot is simple. A Civil War soldier gives up his life, yet somehow survives a suicidal move. He is sent out West, where he ends up living by himself. There is a Native American tribe nearby, I believe Dakota. He approaches them, develops a relationship with them, and even finds a woman to be with. His own toxic culture comes back to get him. He manages to escape, with help. He has to leave the indigenous community, but he moves off to a future, with his mate.

    Look at this metaphorically. White man culture is very isolated. One has to die to one’s old self, and go to the wilderness, and lose the old self. Then one finds a cooperative group, which even has a mate available. He cuts himself off from his old culture, and moves off.

    Feminist culture is every bit as abusive as the soldiers who captured John Dunbar. So how do we escape from it? Suzanne, can you talk a little about this? How do we get out of this abusive, identity politics, totalitarian society, that is far worse than any patriarchy, and get back to healthy community?

    A bee is not the being. The hive, with the bees, is the being. The human is not the body. The human is the community, a system of healthy relationships. Suzanne, how do we heal all the wounds, and re-enter healthy community?

  4. When a woman is drinking in a frat party, and a man asks her to go up to his room, she is consenting to sex. -Camille Paglia

    Co-education is a bad idea, because young women are not ready for it. We have reverted to the 1950’s. Every woman is responsible for her own sexuality. There are no parent figures to rescue you. -Camille Paglia

    The concept of hate speech needs to be dropped. -Camille Paglia

  5. Camille Paglia/Quotes

    If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.

    There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.

    Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist.

    Men chase by night those they will not greet by day.

    The prostitute is not, as feminists claim, the victim of men, but rather their conqueror, an outlaw, who controls the sexual channels between nature and culture

    We must accept our pain Change what we can and laugh at the rest

    It is capitalist America that produced the modern independent woman. Never in history have women had more freedom of choice in regard to dress, behavior, career, and sexual orientation.

    If you live in rock and roll, as I do, you see the reality of sex, of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn’t repel them. [Rock and roll was black slang of the 1940’s for sex.]

    Old school feminism, coveting social power, is blind to woman’s cosmic sexual power.

    Teenage boys, goaded by their surging hormones run in packs like the primal horde. They have only a brief season of exhilarating liberty between control by their mothers and control by their wives.

    Straight men who visit prostitutes are valiantly striving to keep sex free from emotion, duty, family–in other words, from society, religion, and procreative Mother Nature.

    Poetry is the way into a spiritual vision of society and the universe.

    Education has become a prisoner of contemporaneity. It is the past, not the dizzy present, that is the best door to the future.

    The male orientation of classical Athens was inseparable from its genius. Athens became great not despite but because of its misogyny.

    Western science is a product of the Apollonian mind: its hope is that by naming and classification, by the cold light of intellect, archaic night can be pushed back and defeated.

    The western mind makes definitions; it draws lines.

    Nature is always pulling the rug out from under our pompous ideals.

    Every reading is partial, but that does not absolve us from the quest for meaning, which defines us as a species.

    Beauty is our escape from the murky flesh-envelope that imprisons us.

    Liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother.

    The Earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.

    We are merely one of a multitude of species upon which nature indiscriminately exerts its force. Nature has a master agenda we can only dimly know.

    Sex is power.

    The altar, as in pre-history, is anywhere you kneel.

    Twentieth-century physics, going full circle back to Heracleitus, postulates that all matter is in motion. In other words, there is no thing, only energy.

    My advice, as in everything, is to read widely and think for yourself We need more dissent and less dogma.

    A woman simply is, but a man must become. Masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from woman, and it is confirmed only by other men.

    All roads from Rousseau lead to Sade. [sadism]

    Human beings are not nature’s favorites. We are merely one of a multitude of species upon which nature indiscriminately exerts its force.

  6. When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America’s great bridges, I think: men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry […] If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts. [From Sexual Personae]

    Look, we all know that men made these big structures. How many photos have you seen of women having their lunch on I-Beams as they take 5 from constructing the Empire State Building? Okay, so we’re on the same page. Men are meant to build and develop skyscrapers and truss bridges and all of those enormous configurations of civilization.

    So here’s where I really tick the feminists off. Those “social constructionists” like to think that gender is forced on us by culture; I say we are born men and women because of—duh!—hormones. Women just don’t have it in them to get out there, conquer nature, overcome the challenges of putting together a construction bridge or strategize some mass-transit system or 400-unit apartment building. I’m just calling it like it is.

    Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination… Yet that cynical posture has become de rigueur in the art world—simply another reason for the shallow derivativeness of so much contemporary art, which has no big ideas left. [From Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Star Wars]

    Intellectuals chap my hide for many reasons, but when they diss religion, I have to go in with full guns blazing. A lot of academics think they are above religion—that it’s just a bunch of hokum thinking for the subintelligent—that religion is “low-brow.”

    Well, naturally I have a few things to say about this: first, where has this condescending attitude gotten us? A bunch of splattered paint on a canvas that we’re supposed to accept as the new meaningful form of artistic expression. I say “Hell no” to that. Because contemporary art has become too cool for religion, it now gives us a bunch of feminist performance art or identity-based expressions that offer absolutely no deeper commentary about broader cultural or historical issues. You will never really get what a culture is about unless you study its religion—and that includes its sacred texts—Torah, Bible, Koran, or what have you.

    Homosexual promiscuity is not in nature’s best interest. Certainly not anal sex. Nature wants us to procreate. [From Playboy interview, May 1995]

    Well, this one was sure to enflame. But who am I to mince words when I have valuable cultural commentary to offer the world? People are ready to jump on me for this comment, accusing me of being homophobic—but that just is not true. I am not making a moral judgment—I am a lesbian and some of my best friends are gay men.

    What I am talking about here is plain and simple nature—an entity of force that cannot be fought. Nature wants what it wants and has its own drives and motivations. So I think it’s pretty obvious that nature meant for men and women to be together and didn’t intend or plan for the development of homosexuality. Don’t make me get all graphic and give you an anatomy lesson. Look: we are supposed to procreate, have babies, perpetuate the species—that’s doesn’t mean we have to, but that’s why our bodies are the way they are.

    A woman cannot go on a date, have a bunch of drinks and go back to some guy’s dorm room or apartment and then, when he jumps on her, cry date rape. [From Playboy interview, May 1995]

    I make no bones about my attitude toward rape. I just get a little sick of people blaming men for rape as though women have absolutely nothing to do with it. Our culture has made women even more sexually victimized by creating all sorts of rules and laws around rape and then coming up with these crazy subcategories like “marital rape” and “date rape.”

    Feminists like to interpret rape as the man acting out the power structures of an aggressive “patriarchal” society—now that’s a buzzword I hate. Well, I have a biological interpretation: men have hormones and they act on them. Now women have a part to play too—it’s called sending signals.

    I am so sick of false rape claims. Look, if you show your attraction to a man in all of these ways, ladies, you are establishing sexual expectations. So I say: Women—if you don’t want to seduce a guy, don’t go home with him. What were you planning on doing? Watching reruns of The Simpsons? Stop blaming men.

    Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.

    Homosexuality is not ‘normal’ On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm…Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction…No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous…homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.

    What feminism calls patriarchy is simply civilization , an abstract system designed by men but augmented and now co-owned by women.

    I say the law should be blind to race, gender and sexual orientation, just as it claims to be blind to wealth and power. There should be no specially protected groups of any kind, except for children, the severely disabled and the elderly, whose physical frailty demands society’s care.

    It’s so tiring to make love to women, it takes forever. I’m too lazy to be a lesbian.

    What troubles me about the “hostile workplace” category of sexual harassment policy is that women are being returned to their old status of delicate flowers who must be protected from assault by male lechers. It is anti-feminist to ask for special treatment for women.

    Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill, which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.

    The true mission of feminism today is not to carp about the woes of affluent Western career women but to turn the spotlight on life-and-death issues affecting women in the Third World, particularly in rural areas where they have little protection against exploitation and injustice.

    Women are not in control of their bodies; nature is. Ancient mythology, with its sinister archetypes of vampire and Gorgon, is more accurate than feminism about the power and terror of female sexuality.

    Eroticism is mystique; that is, the aura of emotion and imagination around sex. It cannot be ‘fixed’ by codes of social or moral convenience, whether from the political left or right. For nature’s fascism is greater than that of any society. There is a daemonic instability in sexual relations that we may have to accept.

    I believe God is man’s greatest idea. Those incapable of religious feeling or those (like hard-core gay activists) who profane sacred ground do not have the imagination to educate the young. … Until the left comes to its senses about the cultural power of religion, the right will continue to broaden its appeal.

    Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all.

    Prostitution is not just a service industry, mopping up the overflow of male demand, which always exceeds female supply. Prostitution testifies to the amoral power struggle of sex, which religion has never been able to stop. Prostitutes, pornographers, and their patrons are marauders in the forest of archaic night.
    Women’s studies is a comfy, chummy morass of unchallenged groupthink . It is, with rare exception, totally unscholarly. Academic feminists have silenced men and dissenting women.

    The unhappy truth is that male homosexuality will never be fully accepted by the heterosexual majority, who are obeying the dictates not of bigoted society or religion but of procreative nature.

    A woman simply is, but a man must become.

    I want to fall on the floor laughing – imagining Hillary Clinton working well in the Senate with everybody else! Oh, give me a break. I’ve already joked in print that they would need to build her a private cloakroom on the Mall. This is not a woman who has any ability to deal with the mass of humanity. She is the most arrogant, the most moralistic, the most sermonizing and annoying person on earth.

    Contemporary feminism cut itself off from history and bankrupted itself when it spun its puerile, paranoid fantasy of male oppressors and female sex-object victims. Woman is the dominant sex.

    Ambitious young women today are taught to ignore or suppress every natural instinct, if it conflicts with the feminist agenda posed on them. All literary and artistic works, no matter how great, that document the ambivalence of female sexuality they are trained to dismiss as “misogynous.” In other words, their minds are being programmed to secede from their bodies … there is a huge gap between feminist rhetoric and women’s actual sex lives, where feminism is of little help except with a certain stratum of deferential, malleable, white middle-class men.

    -Camille Paglia

  7. Camille Paglia
    Quotations

    A serious problem in America is the gap between academe and the mass media, which is our culture. Professors of humanities, with all their leftist fantasies, have little direct knowledge of American life and no impact whatever on public policy.

    Elizabeth Taylor is pre-feminist woman. This is the source of her continuing greatness and relevance. She wields the sexual power that feminism cannot explain and has tried to destroy. Through stars like Taylor, we sense the world-disordering impact of legendary women like Delilah, Salome, and Helen of Troy. Feminism has tried to dismiss the femme fatale as a misogynist libel, a hoary cliché. But the femme fatale expresses women’s ancient and eternal control of the sexual realm. The specter of the femme fatale stalks all men’s relations with women.

    There is no true expertise in the humanities without knowing all of the humanities. Art is a vast, ancient interconnected web-work, a fabricated tradition. Overconcentration on any one point is a distortion.

    Cinema is the culmination of the obsessive, mechanistic male drive in western culture. The movie projector is an Apollonian straightshooter, demonstrating the link between aggression and art. Every pictorial framing is a ritual limitation, a barred precinct.

    All objects, all phases of culture are alive. They have voices. They speak of their history and interrelatedness. And they are all talking at once!

    In the theory of gender I began from zero. There is no masculine power or privilege I did not covet. But slowly, step by step, decade by decade, I was forced to acknowledge that even a woman of abnormal will cannot escape her hormonal identity.

    I believe that history has shape, order, and meaning; that exceptional men, as much as economic forces, produce change; and that passé abstractions like beauty, nobility, and greatness have a shifting but continuing validity.

    When anything goes, it’s women who lose.

    Madonna is the true feminist. She exposes the puritanism and suffocating ideology of American feminism, which is stuck in an adolescent whining mode. Madonna has taught young women to be fully female and sexual while still exercising control over their lives.

    Men know they are sexual exiles. They wander the earth seeking satisfaction, craving and despising, never content. There is nothing in that anguished motion for women to envy.

    Every man must define his identity against his mother. If he does not, he just falls back into her and is swallowed up.

    My generation of the Sixties, with all our great ideals, destroyed liberalism, because of our excesses.

    Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of woman’s attention.

    The Dionysian is no picnic.

    The Bible has come under fire for making woman the fall guy in man’s cosmic drama. But in casting a male conspirator, the serpent, as God’s enemy, Genesis hedges and does not take its misogyny far enough. The Bible defensively swerves from God’s true opponent, chthonian nature. The serpent is not outside Eve but in her. She is the garden and the serpent.

    Even the best critical writing on Emily Dickinson underestimates her. She is frightening. To come to her directly from Dante, Spenser, Blake, and Baudelaire is to find her sadomasochism obvious and flagrant. Birds, bees, and amputated hands are the dizzy stuff of this poetry. Dickinson is like the homosexual cultist draping himself in black leather and chains to bring the idea of masculinity into aggressive visibility.

    Human life began in flight and fear. Religion rose from rituals of propitiation, spells to lull the punishing elements.

    The only antidote to the magic of images is the magic of words.

    There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.

    Let’s get rid of Infirmary Feminism, with its bedlam of bellyachers, anorexics, bulimics, depressives, rape victims, and incest survivors. Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses.

  8. Let’s talk about toxic thinking. Is it ok to kill a human being? Most people would say no. It may be necessary in war, which is a special condition. For the Nazis, they adapted American ideas about eugenics. Feeble minded people were killed off. No-one much objected. They started on other groups. They sterilized black people, to keep their genes from spreading in the German gene pool. it is interesting that the Nuremberg laws, which specified who was a Jew, were adapted from Jim Crow laws in the South- and were not as stringed as Jim Crow. Is it ok to kill innocent people? Presumably no. You said “anger and aggression is cloaked in righteousness and fairness for all”. So, by what standard is it ok to kill a fetus? Any standard beyond its coming into physical being can also be applied to adults. Is it ok to kill a fetus because it is not conscious? The Nazis had no problem killing off people in comas. Is it ok to kill a fetus because it couldn’t survive out of the womb? You may not recall iron lungs. And there are people who survive because they are on machinery that keeps them alive. By that standard, these people could be “aborted”. We can also make an argument that abortion is ok because the child could be a burden. How many people in hospitals are also burdens? A second trimester abortion involves draining the amniotic fluid, and using forceps to pull each leg, then each arm, ripping it off the body, and then pulling the head off, and then pulling out the trunk. Abortion doctors say their faces are very human indeed. Abortion is ok because we don’t see the murder happening. The Nazis also kept their murders secret. There is no moral argument for abortion. There are other arguments, out of convenience, but no moral arguments. How is it fair to kill innocent fetuses? How is it just? If, as in China, previously, abortions occurred more for women than for men, how is that fair and just?

  9. Toxicity in society comes from one thing: focus on self, to the exclusion of all others. Obviously one has to take care of oneself. Yet there is always surplus. That is where toxicity can occur.

    Health is flow. Toxicity is blocked flow. Flowing water tends to be clean. Stagnant water stinks.
    Those who concentrate totally on themselves become toxic, because their flow is blocked. Those who help others feel better. There is a dopamine rush for those who help others, for those who are helped, and those who even just watch. Yesterday, I went by a garage sale, and got some used baseball gloves, balls, and bats. They asked me who I was given them to. I said to kids in a project, who are mostly in single parent families. They said “just take them”, and didn’t charge me. And they will be passed on this week. This is a small thing, but small kindnesses matter.

    Winston Churchill was raised by a nanny. She came to see him in his private school. British private schools of the time were rather cruel. When she left, he gave her a kiss on the cheek, of thanks. Several other lads thought they wished they had done that, also.

    Minor courtesies matter. They are the lubrication of society. You can respect people you hate. And, if you respect them, you might notice some common points, and not hate them as much. It is interesting to read of Vietnam era vets, visiting Vietnam, to speak with former Viet Cong. They know that they were each lads, in a very difficult situation. They end up seeing each other as almost comrades, and even compliment each other, as being good soldiers. This is out of a time of bitter conflict. As conflictive as American society is, now, it is not at war. The Dalai Lama once said his religion was kindness. Thich Nhat Hanh comes out of the Zen tradition. Here’s a quote:

    “When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don’t blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce. Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive
    effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and argument. That is my experience. No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding. If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change”.

  10. Toxicity is a choice, and it is the result of choices made. So is health. Which feels better?

    Peace begins with a smile.

    Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies.

    Spread love everywhere you go. Let no one ever come to you without leaving happier.

    We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.

    Intense love does not measure, it just gives.

    Intense love does not measure. It just gives.

    Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love.

    Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless.

    The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for bread.”

    If you can’t feed a hundred people, then feed just one.

    Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin.

    I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.

    We shall never know all the good that a simple smile can do.

    Love cannot remain by itself – it has no meaning. Love has to be put into action, and that action is service.

    The most terrible poverty is loneliness, and the feeling of being unloved.

    If you judge people, you have no time to love them.

    What can you do to promote world peace? Go home and love your family.

    I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.

    I want you to be concerned about your next-door neighbor. Do you know your next-door neighbor?

    I am not sure exactly what heaven will be like, but I know that when we die and it comes time for God to judge us, he will not ask, ‘How many good things have you done in your life?’ rather he will ask, ‘How much love did you put into what you did?

    God doesn’t require us to succeed, he only requires that you try.

    If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.

    It’s not how much we give but how much love we put into giving.

    Joy is a net of love in which you can catch souls.

    Let us always meet each other with smile, for the smile is the beginning of love.

    If you are humble nothing will touch you, neither praise nor disgrace, because you know what you are.

    Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.

    We do not need violence to bring peace, we need love and compassion.

  11. A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: “We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable”. So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said “This being is like a thick snake”. For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, “is a wall”. Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

    The blind men and the elephant

    In some versions, the blind men then discover their disagreements, suspect the others to be not telling the truth and come to blows. The stories also differ primarily in how the elephant’s body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved. In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to “see” the full elephant. In another, a sighted man enters the parable and describes the entire elephant from various perspectives, the blind men then learn that they were all partially correct and partially wrong. While one’s subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth.

    The parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one’s subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields of contradicting theories, the need for deeper understanding, and respect for different perspectives on the same object of observation.

  12. Think back on the concept of revenge. People who have been hurt strike out. Gloria Steinem, for example, makes statements that are toxic, and unquestionably hate speech. She was hurt when she was young, and decided to continue the chain of violence, and pass it on with interest. I can’t imagine a better example of toxicity.

    So the men she and others hurt go MGTOW. And tune women out. Dealing with women, for men, is not easy. It takes quite a bit of adjustment, and calibration, in the best of situations. Feminists are generally very dysfunctional as spouses. I cannot imagine why any man would even want a feminist to know who he was. Anonymity is a great defence, against feminists. If they don’t know who you are, they cannot hurt you directly. The best and safest way to deal with feminists, at a personal level, for a man, is simply to be invisible, and to ghost them. No good comes from dealing with feminists. Mujeresjovenes is a feminist website in Spain, which is very, very toxic. If a Spanish man discovers that a woman has been hitting that website, he knows to gently drop her out of his life.

  13. “Men are the oppressors, and women are the oppressed. ”

    Ain’t nobody here but us fish bicycles. And we don’t want to oppress anybody. Polite people don’t go where they aren’t wanted, and the vast majority of men are polite.

    Women operate out of pictures in their minds. The pictures lead to feelings. This is a trained sequence. They operate out of feminist pictures, which, while inaccurate, lead to toxic feelings.

    And then later, some realize that lesbian spouses are very hard to deal with, usually. They discover that yes, it is very nice to have support, in a relationship, with children. Some decide they aren’t going to wait for Mr. Right to show up, so they get artificial insemination. ANd they don’t think about what that means. Men are usually very uninterested in getting involved with a woman who already has children, for many reasons.

    I’ve seen these women, who are more toxic than they can imagine. They can’t see how toxic they are. Most men can, though. They are in the twilight of their attraction to men, which is declining, so they don’t have much Sexual Market Value, aside from their feminist toxicity. I was in a class, with some feminists, in college. I kept my mouth shut, which is often smart to do. I listened to these women, who were in their 30’s, talk in a very toxic way, about men. And then, they talked about how there were no men available for relationships, of the kind they wanted- money, a house, well off, and so forth. They could find men who had no jobs, or maybe some very minor job, that they’d have had to support, but they didn’t want to do that. They had no capacity to put themselves in the heads of such men, to see themselves, as men saw them. I saw them as extremely toxic. I listened, but I talked to them as little as possible. They took on the worst aspects of their inner image of the worst kind of men. Those who walk in cow patties stink. Toxicity is a set of decisions. Even Chinese women are becoming more toxic.

  14. Marry Him!
    The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough
    LORI GOTTLIEB
    The original text comes from an article in the press.

    About six months after my son was born, he and I were sitting on a blanket at the park with a close friend and her daughter. It was a sunny summer weekend, and other parents and their kids picnicked nearby—mothers munching berries and lounging on the grass, fathers tossing balls with their giddy toddlers.
    …an idyllic scene. Nice place to start.

    My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr. Right yet, surveyed the idyllic scene.
    …”self-empowerment”. Hmmm. Clearly an interesting voyage is about to start.

    “Ah, this is the dream,” I said, and we nodded in silence for a minute, then burst out laughing. In some ways, I meant it: we’d both dreamed of motherhood, and here we were, picnicking in the park with our children. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after.
    …surely no American woman has this dream any more. How outre.

    Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
    …I can’t believe I’m reading this. Surely I’m hallucinating. An American woman wrote this? No way!

    To the outside world, of course, we still call ourselves feminists and insist—vehemently, even—that we’re independent and self-sufficient and don’t believe in any of that damsel-in-distress stuff, but in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family.
    …. Oh gee, and my ambition was always to be a fishbicycle. A sexist, horribly oppressive, patriarchal traditional family? No way Jose! No can be!

    And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.
    … No way. Everything else in life was served to her on a silver platter, surely Mr. Right will also be served. It’s just a matter of waiting. And playing with bad boys. And some tattoos. And partying.
    Oh, I know—I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to the editor to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.

  15. Oh, I know—I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to the editor to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.
    …Is this an indication that wisdom, in the sense of awareness, might be showing up in her life? Will wonders never cease… awareness rears its head.
    Whether you acknowledge it or not, there’s good reason to worry. By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are. At their core, they pose one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with nowadays: Is it better to be alone, or to settle?
    …A good question. And every good feminist knows the answer. Alone! And empowered!
    My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year. (It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)
    ….Wisdom rears its head again. This is truly beautiful.
    Obviously, I wasn’t always an advocate of settling. In fact, it took not settling to make me realize that settling is the better option, and even though settling is a rampant phenomenon, talking about it in a positive light makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Whenever I make the case for settling, people look at me with creased brows of disapproval or frowns of disappointment, the way a child might look at an older sibling who just informed her that Jerry’s Kids aren’t going to walk, even if you send them money.
    …Well, since women have been handed so much on that silver platter, why on earth would they settle for the aluminum platter? You go girl!
    It’s not only politically incorrect to get behind settling, it’s downright un-American. Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize (while our mothers, who know better, tell us not to be so picky), and the theme of holding out for true love (whatever that is—look at the divorce rate) permeates our collective mentality.
    … That’s it, eye on the prize! What did our mothers know?
    Even situation comedies, starting in the 1970s with The Mary Tyler Moore Show and going all the way to Friends, feature endearing single women in the dating trenches, and there’s supposed to be something romantic and even heroic about their search for true love. Of course, the crucial difference is that, whereas the earlier series begins after Mary has been jilted by her fiancé, the more modern-day Friends opens as Rachel Green leaves her nice-guy orthodontist fiancé at the altar simply because she isn’t feeling it. But either way, in episode after episode, as both women continue to be unlucky in love, settling starts to look pretty darn appealing. Mary is supposed to be contentedly independent and fulfilled by her newsroom family, but in fact her life seems lonely. Are we to assume that at the end of the series, Mary, by then in her late 30s, found her soul mate after the lights in the newsroom went out and her work family was disbanded? If her experience was anything like mine or that of my single friends, it’s unlikely.
    …You didn’t know? Mary never found Mr. Right. She is now a cat lady, in a small subsidized apartment in an elderly complex, living on Social Security and a small pension. 95% of the residents are women. Mary inspired so many women to be by themselves. After she divorced Dick van Dyke [interesting name there], she went out on her own, just like the song said.

  16. After she divorced Dick van Dyke [interesting name there], she went out on her own, just like the song said.
    And while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the orthodontist, 10 years earlier? She and Ross have passion but have never had long-term stability, and the fireworks she experiences with him but not with Barry might actually turn out to be a liability, given how many times their relationship has already gone up in flames.
    ….Passion does not maintain relationships. Commitment does. Barry got married, and is devoted to his family. Gone up in flames… interesting image.
    It’s equally questionable whether Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, who cheated on her kindhearted and generous boyfriend, Aidan, only to end up with the more exciting but self-absorbed Mr. Big, will be better off in the framework of marriage and family. (Some time after the breakup, when Carrie ran into Aidan on the street, he was carrying his infant in a Baby Björn. Can anyone imagine Mr. Big walking around with a Björn?)
    ….Gosh, I can’t imagine that. And it’s clear you get your relationship advice from television, which obviously has your best interests at heart, as opposed to your mother, who only has decades more direct experience than you do. Carrie. Doesn’t she have a shoe addiction? Oh wait, and the girls she runs with all ride the C Carousel. Mr. Big has so many options in NYC, too. How long will he stay with a 40’s ish neurotic woman, who’s had more action than a Navy seal, with addictions?
    When we’re holding out for deep romantic love, we have the fantasy that this level of passionate intensity will make us happier.
    ….Fantasy. Yes, that’s a good description.
    But marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion.
    ….Yes, it might be. Gosh, even your parents might have told you this, had you listened to them.
    Madame Bovary might not see it that way, but if she’d remained single, I’ll bet she would have been even more depressed than she was while living with her tedious but caring husband.
    …and you get your relationship advice also from novels. Is there perhaps something wrong with this picture?
    What I didn’t realize when I decided, in my 30s, to break up with boyfriends I might otherwise have ended up marrying, is that while settling seems like an enormous act of resignation when you’re looking at it from the vantage point of a single person, once you take the plunge and do it, you’ll probably be relatively content. It sounds obvious now, but I didn’t fully appreciate back then that what makes for a good marriage isn’t necessarily what makes for a good romantic relationship.
    …Mmmm. Wow. Your mother might have told you this when you were in your early 20’s. But you didn’t listen, did you? No, you wanted the wild bad boys! The PASSION!

  17. Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.
    …. Men tend to know this. They know that marriage is like signing an agreement with a business partner. Because marriage and raising kids is more like a business, than a passionate vacation. Enjoy the passion when it comes. Another thing men know is that there is always a lazy partner to the business. How much laziness are they willing to tolerate? Since they have to make up the slack.
    I don’t mean to say that settling is ideal. I’m simply saying that it might have gotten an undeservedly bad rap. As the only single woman in my son’s mommy-and-me group, I used to listen each week to a litany of unrelenting complaints about people’s husbands and feel pretty good about my decision to hold out for the right guy, only to realize that these women wouldn’t trade places with me for a second, no matter how dull their marriages might be or how desperately they might long for a different husband.
    …..Because women release tension by complaining. Once they get the tension out, they see things in a new light.
    They, like me, would rather feel alone in a marriage than actually be alone, because they, like me, realize that marriage ultimately isn’t about cosmic connection—it’s about how having a teammate, even if he’s not the love of your life, is better than not having one at all.
    …..Goodness gracious. Wisdom is starting to show up for this woman. Ahh, awareness, how sweet you are!
    The couples my friend and I saw at the park that summer were enviable but not because they seemed so in love—they were enviable because the husbands played with the kids for 20 minutes so their wives could eat lunch. In practice, my married friends with kids don’t spend that much time with their husbands anyway (between work and child care), and in many cases, their biggest complaint seems to be that they never see each other.
    …..Yes, having a partner means you get breaks. Wisdom, thy name is ecstatic awareness!
    So if you rarely see your husband—but he’s a decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear, and he provides a second income that allows you to spend time with your child instead of working 60 hours a week to support a family on your own—how much does it matter whether the guy you marry is The One?
    …..A most interesting question you ask. Most interesting. Gosh, maybe that’s why two parent families exist in most parts of the world. It’s a stable, functional form.
    It’s not that I’ve become jaded to the point that I don’t believe in, or even crave, romantic connection. It’s that my understanding of it has changed. In my formative years, romance was John Cusack and Ione Skye in Say Anything.
    ….. Oh my. Yet more relationship advice from MOVIES, which are by definition fantasy. That’s a great idea. Base your decisions on fantasies.
    But when I think about marriage nowadays, my role models are the television characters Will and Grace, who, though Will was gay and his relationship with Grace was platonic, were one of the most romantic couples I can think of.
    …..Let’s see, a couple where the man is gay is the most romantic couple you can think of. Let me read this again. Your idea of a role model for a partner is a gay man. What’s wrong with this picture?

  18. What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime. Someone who knows your day-to-day trivia. Someone who both calls you on your bullshit and puts up with your quirks. So what if Will and Grace weren’t having sex with each other? How many long- married couples are having much sex anyway?
    ….It’s clear that Mr GoodEnough has a lot to look forward to, starting with a woman who likes gay men, and doesn’t intend to have sex with him. What man wouldn’t be excited with this woman, already?
    “I just want someone who’s willing to be in the trenches with me,” my single friend Jennifer told me, “and I never thought of marriage that way before.” Two of Jennifer’s friends married men who Jennifer believes aren’t even straight, and while Jennifer wouldn’t have made that choice a few years back, she wonders whether she might be capable of it in the future. “Maybe they understood something that I didn’t,” she said.
    …More fascination with gay men. Is there a pattern here?
    What they understood is this: as your priorities change from romance to family, the so-called “deal breakers” change. Some guys aren’t worldly, but they’d make great dads. Or you walk into a room and start talking to this person who is 5’4″ and has an unfortunate nose, but he “gets” you. My long-married friend Renée offered this dating advice to me in an e-mail:
    I would say even if he’s not the love of your life, make sure he’s someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you … I bet there are plenty of these men in the older, overweight, and bald category (which they all eventually become anyway).
    She wasn’t joking.
    …The voice of Wisdom speaks to her. “a great dad” might indeed be useful in a family. Even if he might be, what is this: “older, overweight, and bald”. This woman cannot be a feminist.
    A number of my single women friends admit (in hushed voices and after I swear I won’t use their real names here) that they’d readily settle now but wouldn’t have 10 years ago. They believe that part of the problem is that we grew up idealizing marriage—and that if we’d had ……a more realistic understanding of its cold, hard benefits,…. we might have done things differently. Instead, we grew up thinking that marriage meant feeling some kind of divine spark, and so we walked away from uninspiring relationships that might have made us happy in the context of a family.
    ….Lorna Byrne noted that most people do not marry their soul mates, and that this is unrealistic. I love seeing those seminars for women, on how they will all find their soulmate, even with 150 extra pounds on, a nasty, nasty disposition, a victim mentality, and a feral feminist resentment about men.

  19. All marriages, of course, involve compromise, but where’s the cutoff? Where’s the line between compromising and settling, and at what age does that line seem to fade away? Choosing to spend your life with a guy who doesn’t delight in the small things in life might be considered settling at 30, but not at 35. By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s, is that settling or making an adult compromise?
    ….You sent out an avatar, into imagined possible futures. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush, as the old folks say.,..

    Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, Maybe I can settle for better. It’s like musical chairs—when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you’re not left standing alone?
    ….Yes, hypergamy. “I can do better”. People with wisdom take what comes to them, and are thankful for that. And they commit. Yes, you can settle for better. Mr. Right is just around the corner, he is….

    Back when I was still convinced I’d find my soul mate, I did, although I never articulated this, have certain requirements. I thought that the person I married would have to have a sense of wonderment about the world, would be both spontaneous and grounded, and would acknowledge that life is hard but also be able to navigate its ups and downs with humor.
    ….Oh, here’s the grocery list for the guy. He has to have a “sense of wonderment about the world”, he’s both “spontaneous and grounded”, acknowledges “that life is hard” and “navigates its ups and downs with humor.” Ah, lass you tend to attract what you are. Do YOU have all these qualities? If not, why would any guy with these qualities be interested in you? How many of the qualities on his list of ideal characteristics for a woman do you have? Oh, you didn’t think about that, did you? Since it is the world’s job to serve you…

    Many of the guys I dated possessed these qualities, but if one of them lacked a certain degree of kindness, another didn’t seem emotionally stable enough, and another’s values clashed with mine. Others were sweet but so boring that I preferred reading during dinner to sitting through another tedious conversation. I also dated someone who appeared to be highly compatible with me—we had much in common, and strong physical chemistry—but while our sensibilities were similar, they proved to be a half-note off, so we never quite felt in harmony, or never viewed the world through quite the same lens.
    …..Yes, none of them were perfect. And are you yourself perfect, oh Seeker, who seeks for perfect people?….

    Now, though, I realize that if I don’t want to be alone for the rest of my life, I’m at the age where I’ll likely need to settle for someone who is settling for me. What I and many women who hold out for true love forget is that we won’t always have the same appeal that we may have had in our 20s and early 30s. Having turned 40, I now have wrinkles, bags under my eyes, and hair in places I didn’t know hair could grow on women.
    ….Now you realize you’ll need to settle. Now. And what does he have to look forward to. Oh, you have wrinkles, bags under your eyes, hair in unusual places. Yes, that really makes his day, I’m sure, since you’re also “settling” for him. What better motivator to commit to Las Vegas odds of losing half his assets, and half his income for 20 years, than all this? That really will add to his self esteem…….
    With my nonworking life consumed by thoughts of potty training and playdates, I’ve become a far less interesting person than the one who went on hiking adventures and performed at comedy clubs.
    ….Sounds like even the pair bonding sex will be perhaps less than stellar. Hmm…..

    But when I chose to have a baby on my own, the plan was that I would continue to search for true connection afterward; it certainly wasn’t that I would have a baby alone only to settle later. After all, wouldn’t it have been wiser to settle for a higher caliber of “not Mr. Right” while my marital value was at its peak?
    …..Yes, it would have. In a nutshell. And you HAD A KID FIRST. A $250,000 obligation, that Mr. Right will have to pay for, whether you stay with him or not. Let’s not forget the bags under your eyes, wrinkles, and hair, too. No question that Mr. Right would want to put a ring on this one now, to get her off the market….

  20. .

    Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. And even if some men do find us engaging, and they’re ready to have a family, they’ll likely decide to marry someone younger with whom they can have their own biological children. Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option.
    …….Yes. Decisions have consequences. And life follows a pattern. And a man with a choice between a 40 year old woman with bags under her eyes, wrinkles, hair in unusual places, who wants a gay man, who has a child, and can’t seem to focus on what she really does want, and a 25 year old woman who DOES know what she wants, is focused, and open to creating a family together… will choose which one, I wonder… and you’ll just have to settle, as you say…. Life is a bitch, isn’t it…..
    I’ll be the first to admit that there’s something objectionable about making the case for settling, because it’s based on the premise that women’s biological clocks place them at the mercy of men, and that therefore a power dynamic dictates what should be an affair solely of the heart (not the heart and the ovaries). But I’m not the only woman who accepts settling as a valid choice—apparently so do the millions who buy bestselling relationship books that advocate settling but that, so as not to offend, simply spin the concept as a form of female empowerment.
    …..Oh, now we’re getting relationship advice from books. This is an improvement. And the biological clock is very real, isn’t it.
    Take, for instance, books like Men Are Like Fish: What Every Woman Needs to Know About Catching a Man or Find a Husband After 35 Using What I Learned at Harvard Business School, whose titles alone make it clear that today’s supposedly progressive bachelorettes aren’t waiting for old-fashioned true love to strike before they can get married. Instead, they’re buying dozens of proactive coaching manuals to learn how to strategically land a man. The actual man in question, though, seems so irrelevant that, to my mind, these women might as well grab a well-dressed guy off the street, drag him into the nearest bar, buy him a drink, and ask him to marry her. (Or, to retain her “power,” she should manipulate him into asking her.)
    …..Fantasies.

    The approaches in these books may differ, but the message is the same: more important than love is marriage. To achieve that goal, women across the country are poring over guidebooks that all boil down to determining, “Does he like me?,” while completely overlooking the equally essential question, “Do I like him?” In other words, whatever compromises you have to make—including, but not limited to, pretending to be or actually becoming an entirely different person—make sure that you get some schmo to propose to you before you turn into a spinster.
    …..Is this the denial phase, or the bargaining phase, of grief?
    Last year’s Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women makes the most blatant case for settling: if women were more willing to “think outside the box,” as one of the book’s married sources advises, many of them would be married. The author then trots out tales of professional, accomplished women happily dating a plumber, a park ranger, and an Army helicopter nurse. The moral is supposed to be “Don’t be too picky” but many of the anecdotes quote women who seem to be trying to convince not just the reader, but themselves, that they haven’t settled.
    …… Yes, more fantasy. Great way to deal with reality.
    “I should be with some guy with a vast vocabulary who is very smart,” said Heather, a 30-year-old lawyer turned journalist. Instead, she’s dating an actor who didn’t finish college. “My boyfriend is fun, he’s smart, but he hasn’t gone through years of school. He wanted to pursue acting. And you can tell—he doesn’t have that background, and it never ever once bothered me. But for everyone else, [his lack of education] is what they see.” Another woman says she dates “the ‘secrets’ … guys other women don’t recognize as great.” How’s that for damning praise?
    ………That’s exactly what it is. And all of them want the perfect man, clearly.

  21. Meanwhile, in sugarcoating this message, the authors often resort to flattery, telling the reader to remember how fabulous, attractive, charming, and intelligent she is, in the hopes that she’ll project a more confident vibe on dates. In my case, though, the flattery backfired. I read these books thinking, Wait, if I’m such a great catch, why should I settle for anyone less than my equal? If I’m so fabulous, don’t I deserve true romantic connection?
    …..Fantasy is a wonderful way to make critical life decisions, clearly…..

    Only one popular book that I can think of in the vast “find a man” genre (like most single women confounded by their singleness, I’m embarrassingly well versed) takes the opposite approach. In He’s Just Not That Into You, written by the happily married Greg Behrendt and the unhappily single Liz Tuccillo, the duo exhorts women not to settle. But the book’s format is telling: Behrendt gives perky pep talks to women unable to find a worthy match, while Tuccillo repeatedly comments on how hard it is to take her co-author’s advice, because while being with a partner who is “beneath you” (Behrendt’s term) is problematic, being single just plain “sucks” (Tuccillo’s term).
    ….Yes, the man should be on top. Always. He needs to have more education, more wealth, more everything, and he has to be perfect. For a 40 year old woman, with bags under her eyes, wrinkles, a child who has to be supported, a clear inability to commit to a relationship…..

    Before I got pregnant, though, I also read single-mom books such as Choosing Single Motherhood: The Thinking Woman’s Guide, whose chapter titles “Can I Afford It?” and “Dealing With the Stress” seemed like realistic antidotes to the faux-empowering man-hunting manual headings like “A Little Lingerie Can Go a Long Way.” But the book’s author, Mikki Morrissette, held out a tantalizing carrot. In her introduction, she describes having a daughter on her own; then, she writes, a few years later and five months pregnant with her son, “I met a guy I fell in love with. He and my daughter were in the delivery room when my son was born in January 2004.” Each time I read about single women having babies on their own and thriving instead of settling for Mr. Wrong and hiring a divorce lawyer, I felt all jazzed and ready to go. At the time, I truly believed, “I can have it all—a baby now, my soul mate later!”
    Well … ha! Hahahaha. And ha.

    ……and based on this one outlier example, which is absolutely not representative of a normal course of action, this is the way you should have gone. Is this a Near Death Experience Life review? Oh no it isn’t, you were able to laugh at this absurd tale, that may have been made up to sell a book……

    Just as the relationship books fail to mention what happens after you triumphantly land a husband (you actually have to live with each other), these single-mom books fail to mention that once you have a baby alone, not only do you age about 10 years in the first 10 months, but if you don’t have time to shower, eat, urinate in a timely manner, or even leave the house except for work, where you spend every waking moment that your child is at day care, there’s very little chance that a man—much less The One—is going to knock on your door and join that party.
    ….Wisdom knocks on the door yet again. The speaking of truth is so very beautiful…..

    They also gloss over the cost of dating as a single mom: the time and money spent on online dating (because there are no single men at toddler birthday parties); the babysitter tab for all those boring blind dates; and, most frustrating, hours spent away from your beloved child.
    ….Yes. Truth speaks….

    Even women who settle but end up divorced might be in a better position than those of us who became mothers on our own, because many ex-wives get both child-support payments and a free night off when the kids go to Dad’s house for a sleepover. Never-married moms don’t get the night off. At the end of the evening, we rush home to pay the babysitter, make any houseguest tiptoe around and speak in a hushed voice, then wake up at 6 a.m. at the first cries of “Mommy!”
    …..And, here it is, Mr. Perfect! You married the 40 year old woman, with bags under her eyes, wrinkles, a CHILD, who can’t focus or make a commitment, who is always looking for someone better, and NOW she’s going to hit you for child support, and free nights off! YES! What guy wouldn’t jump into that good deal?

  22. Try bringing a guy home to that.
    ….Yes. Try…..
    Settling is mostly a women’s game. Men settle far less often and, when they do, they don’t seem the least bit bothered by the fact that they’re settling.
    ….They know they aren’t going to get the 10, because she loves bad boys, and won’t give them up for a trifling thing like marriage. They know the 10 is used to living in a palace, and demands servants, and that her ever whim be met. So he settles, for someone who is a good partner, instead…….
    My friend Alan, for instance, justified his choice of a “bland” wife who’s a good mom but with whom he shares little connection this way: “I think one-stop shopping is overrated. I get passion at my office with my work, or with my friends that I sometimes call or chat with—it’s not the same, and, boy, it would be exciting to have it with my spouse. But I spend more time with people at my office than I do with my spouse.”
    ……Bland, and a good mom. That’s a LOT better than exciting, and sleeps with bad boys five days a week. Or utterly crazy, and cannot be reasoned with. Or a feminist, who treats him like a piece of crap. He settled for the bland GOOD MOM. Like, maybe he can see what choice would be best for not just his future, but his kids’ future, too.
    Then there’s my friend Chris, a single 35-year-old marketing consultant who for three years dated someone he calls “the perfect woman”—a kind and beautiful surgeon. She broke off the relationship several times because, she told him with regret, she didn’t think she wanted to spend her life with him. Each time, Chris would persuade her to reconsider, until finally she called it off for good, saying that she just couldn’t marry somebody she wasn’t in love with. Chris was devastated, but now that his ex-girlfriend has reached 35, he’s suddenly hopeful about their future.
    …….Oh Chris. You are her inferior. Let her go, dude. Kind and beautiful do not ride the course together, usually. She called it off multiple times. Is there a pattern, here, Chris, that you need to pay attention to, maybe? Like, maybe she’ll call it off after you are on the hook for much more?…
    “By the time she turns 37,” Chris said confidently, “she’ll come back. And I’ll bet she’ll marry me then. I know she wants to have kids.” I asked Chris why he would want to be with a woman who wasn’t in love with him. Wouldn’t he be settling, too, by marrying someone who would be using him to have a family? Chris didn’t see it that way at all. “She’ll be settling,” Chris said cheerfully. “But not me. I get to marry the woman of my dreams. That’s not settling. That’s the fantasy.”
    …..It appears fantasy is not limited to women. Chris clearly is insane….
    Chris believes that women are far too picky:
    …..Well, he has some wisdom….
    everyone knows, he says, that a single middle-aged man still has appealing prospects; a single middle-aged woman likely doesn’t. And he’s right. Single women are painfully aware of this. I hear far more women than men talk about getting married as a goal to be met by a certain deadline. My friend Gabe points out that this allows men to be the true romantics; when a man breaks up with a perfectly acceptable woman because he’s “just not feeling it,” there’s none of the ambivalence a woman with a deadline feels. “Women are the least romantic,” Gabe said. “They think, ‘I can do that.’ For a lot of women, it becomes less about love and more about what they can live with.”
    ……So it does. So much wisdom, and she still can’t commit…..
    Not long ago, Gabe, who is 43, dated a woman he liked very much one-on-one, but he broke up with her because “she couldn’t be haimish”—comfortable—with his friends in a group setting. He has no regrets. A female friend who broke up with a guy because he “didn’t like to read” and who is now, too, a single mom (with, ironically, no time to read herself) similarly felt no regrets—at first. At the time, she couldn’t imagine settling, but here’s the Catch-22: “If I’d settled at 39,” she said, “I always would have had the fantasy that something better exists out there. Now I know better. Either way, I was screwed.”
    ……So many women have this fantasy- something better is waiting for them. It is a cruel lie….
    The paradox, of course, is that the more it behooves a woman to settle, the less willing she is to settle; a woman in her mid- to late 30s is more discriminating than one in her 20s. She has friends who have known her since childhood, friends who will know her more intimately and understand her more viscerally than any man she meets in midlife. Her tastes and sense of self are more solidly formed. She says things like “He wants me to move downtown, but I love my home at the beach,” and, “But he’s just not curious,” and “Can I really spend my life with someone who’s allergic to dogs?”
    …..The more useful settling is, the less willing she is willing to settle. What is the life lesson here?
    Like, maybe selling a car with 100,000 miles on it, at the new price, might not work so well?…..

  23. I’ve been told that the reason so many women end up alone is that we have too many choices. I think it’s the opposite: we have no choice. If we could choose, we’d choose to be in a healthy marriage based on reciprocal passion and friendship. But the only choices on the table, it sometimes seems, are settle or risk being alone forever.That’s not a whole lot of choice.
    …..No, you’d rather choose the handsome prince. The fantasy. Fantasy and reality are not the same thing…..
    Remember the movie Broadcast News? Holly Hunter’s dilemma—the choice between passion and friendship—is exactly the one many women over 30 are faced with. In the end, Holly Hunter’s character decides to wait for the right guy, but he (of course) never materializes. Meanwhile, her emotional soul mate, the Albert Brooks character, gets married (of course) and has children.
    …….MORE relationship advice from movies? That are fantasies? Albert Brooks knew what he wanted, and got it. And she let a soul mate go….
    And no matter what women decide—settle or don’t settle—there’s a price to be paid, because there’s always going to be regret. Unless you meet the man of your dreams (who, by the way, doesn’t exist, precisely because you dreamed him up), there’s going to be a downside to getting married, but a possibly more profound downside to holding out for someone better.
    ………Always regret, for women. They are never happy. And the man of your dreams DOESN’T EXIST, as you yourself say…..
    My friend Jennifer summed it up this way: “When I used to hear women complaining bitterly about their husbands, I’d think, ‘How sad, they settled.’ Now it’s like, ‘God, that would be nice.’”
    ….Mothers have wisdom, sometimes…..
    That’s why mothers tell their daughters to “keep an open mind” about the guy who spends his weekends playing Internet poker or touches your back for two minutes while watching ESPN and calls that “a massage.” The more-pertinent questions, to most concerned mothers of daughters in their 30s, have to do with whether the daughter’s boyfriend will make a good father; or, if he’s a workaholic, whether he can provide the environment for her to be a good mother. As my own mother once advised me, when I was dating a musician, “Everyone settles to some degree. You might as well settle pragmatically.”
    …..Mothers have a LOT of wisdom. Yes, a good father, and you do have to settle, because fantasy is not reality….
    I know all this now, and yet—here’s the problem—much as I’d like to settle, I can’t seem to do it. It’s not that I have to be dazzled by a guy anymore (though it would be nice). It’s not even that I have to think about him when he’s not around (though that would be nice, too). Nor is it that I’m unable to accept reality and make significant compromises because that’s what grown-ups do (I can and have—I had a baby on my own).
    ……The dazzling guys seek the dazzling gals…..
    No, the problem is that the very nature of dating leaves women my age to wrestle with a completely different level of settling. It’s no longer a matter, as it was in my early 30s, of “just not feeling it,” of wanting to be in love. Consider the men whom older women I know have married in varying degrees of desperation over the past few years: a recovering alcoholic who doesn’t always go to his meetings; a trying-to-make-it-in-his-40s actor; a widower who has three nightmarish kids and who’s still actively grieving for his dead wife; and a socially awkward engineer (so socially awkward that he declined to attend his wife’s book party).
    ….Settling also comes at a cost….
    It’s not that these women are crazy; it’s that the dating pool has dwindled dramatically and that, due to gender politics, the few available men tend to require far more of a concession than those who were single when we were younger. And while I have a much higher tolerance for settling than I did back then, now I have my son to consider. It’s one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it’s quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child. So while there’s more incentive to settle now, there’s less willingness to settle too much, because that would be a disservice to my son.
    …..Yes, the market changes. Fresh flowers sell for more. Since you don’t want to settle, why not simply accept that you are single, and be happy with that?
    This doesn’t undermine my case for settling. Instead, it supports my argument to do it young, when settling involves constructing a family environment with a perfectly acceptable man who may not trip your romantic trigger—as opposed to doing it older, when settling involves selling your very soul in exchange for damaged goods.
    …..Yes, settle when you’re young. Suzanne, does anyone you know ever tell women this? Maybe? Other than their mothers, who know?
    Admittedly, it’s a dicey case to make because, like the divorced women I know who claim they wouldn’t have done anything differently, because then they wouldn’t have Biff and Buffy, I, too, can’t imagine life without my magical son. (Although, had I had children with a Mr. Good Enough, wouldn’t I be as hopelessly in love with those children, too?) I also acknowledge the power of the grass-is-always-greener phenomenon, and allow for the possibility that my life alone is better (if far more difficult) than the life I would have in a comfortable but tepid marriage.
    …….Comfortable but tepid. Military guys don’t like exciting, because that means sniper fire, land mines, artillery, and all that. Tepid is very nice, after you’ve been on the roller coaster…..
    But then my married friends say things like, “Oh, you’re so lucky, you don’t have to negotiate with your husband about the cost of piano lessons” or “You’re so lucky, you don’t have anyone putting the kid in front of the TV and you can raise your son the way you want.” I’ll even hear things like, “You’re so lucky, you don’t have to have sex with someone you don’t want to.” The lists go on, and each time, I say, “OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!” Not one person has taken me up on this offer.
    …..Gosh, maybe tepid has its good points? The byline says you are a psychotherapist. What would you tell a client, who said the kind of things you say, here? Every man over 30 needs to read this, and see just what’s in the minds of women, above 30 or so. Wow.

  24. Men are less likely (27% vs 8%, in one poll) to want to get married. Feminists are the reason. I made the mistake of being involved with a feminist. It gave new meaning to the word horrible.
    I tell young men to avoid feminists as they would a large rabid dog. It’s never equal. They always demand more and more, and give little.

    Janice Shaw Crouse wrote: “Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married”

    Sample: “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood” … The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing … They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”

    Oh, ok, men’s only worth is to make women happy. Ken was always just another accessory for Barbie. Feminism has lead to declining happiness for women. Or maybe that’s a correlation is not causation issue. So I’ll ask a simple question: Why would ANY sane man want to put his head in a noose, with a woman who chooses not to be happy?

    Cynical, sad women, aren’t attractive. Men like vibrancy and high energy, not victimization vampires. Men who have dealt with a few of these, surprise, surprise, Sergeant Carter, don’t want to get married. Feminism dictates that there is always a victim, and a struggle, in any walk of life. That includes relationships. And women that eat up that doctrine become it. It becomes competition, instead of cooperation. Women who choose to be victims, and refuse to be happy, become victims of their own beliefs. Here is another quote:

    “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”

    It IS VERY important to have strong families. But how can a man build them with whores, divorce courts, feminism, and every other inherent anti-married man/father issue lingering about?

    Another: “Feminism was supposed to bring women happiness,” Crouse said. “But the research shows that women today are much more unhappy then they have been in the past. They’ve ended up with far more opportunities, but their personal happiness is way down.”

    Oh my. How can a man love a woman who doesn’t love herself? She has a barrier to love. My successful relationships were about pursuing joy, in cooperation. My bad relationships were with feminists. Feminists cannot understand that men, as, check this out, human being, need respect, physical intimacy, loyalty, and shared responsibility.
    Women need different energies: attention, affection, emotional validation, vulnerability, protective/provider some of the time, and so on. To have an efficient relationship, those needs must also be met. Cooperation is the only way this works.

    Many modern women won’t do that They bitch when their needs aren’t met, demanding more and more, and giving less and less. Or they might offering things that no man needs or wants, like “social status”, or a PhD, or some other irrelevant thing. Then they wonder why men drop out.

  25. There is another thing killing marriage: Women Aren’t Women Anymore

    Men are not interested in the same traits in women that women value in men. Ask any man that says he’s not going to get married why, and unless he’s a committed incel he’ll tell you because women aren’t women anymore. Gender relations changed massively. We don’t even talk the same language to each other anymore.

    Men haven’t changed much. Men play the game from women’s rules. Men transform into what gets pussy. Native Americans know this, Orientals know this, Africans know this. Americans are off in la la land. In the 1920’s, it was by being a hardworking businessman, and courting a prospective wife with respect. Now it has changed.

    SOme women think of men as the enemy. Many men are just out for tail. And… that is what men do. Men want to love women, not compete or argue or fight with them. Providing and protecting for families is in our DNA. We’ve been doing it since humanity got started.
    A few slut walks and half a century of “progressive” action doesn’t change that DNA structure within us.

    Men don’t get to feel fulfilled. THeir needs aren’t met, in marriage. Tom Leykis, the guru of hookups, was divorced four times. Men get tired of this, and especially being told what they should and shouldn’t feel. No man goes to a women and tells her that her emotions are invalid. But women do that to men all the time, unconsciously.

    Now men can get one need fulfilled. Sex. And it’s easier than ever. Women lose the commitment, the mutual fulfilling of needs, and the family, by disregarding men’s needs, to protect and provide.

    Women are’t women any more. They are vampires. Men lose, repeatedly. What happens to anyone who plays a rigged game, where they can’t win? They quit.

    • It is amazing how many men similarly describe women in today’s age with euphemisms such as “vampires” or “viruses”.

  26. 41 percent of married couples report having an affair, in one survey. 36 percent report having affairs with coworkers. 17 percent admit to affairs with a brother or sister-in-law. The average length of reported affairs was two years. About 31 percent of couples stay married after an affair or affairs have been admitted. Since 1990, the rate of married women who report they’ve been unfaithful has increased by 40 percent, while the rate among men has remained the same.

    Here’s one story:
    The 49-year-old stay-at-home mom says she was in a happy marriage. She was raising two young children. Hubby worked, and she was fulfilled, but it got stagnant. She checked out Ashley Madison. She didn’t expect to meet somebody who fit my criteria. She did, and it got hot. He was married, as she was. It lasted for some years, and her husband had no idea. She said it was very intense. He left his wife, but she chose to stay with her family. She’d like to replace this, though. She doesn’t ever plan on telling her husband. She wanted to avoid the stigma, and for her children to find out. [Golly gee whillikers, Batman, why is that?]

    Men know that women have been cheating more. And it’s ok with feminism. So you pay the bills, do your job, and still get sloppy seconds. WIthout knowing. For seven years. And most states have no fault divorce, thanks to feminists. So, even doing this, she can still remove his resources. Men know this, more and more.

    Her story is not unique. More and more women play around. It’s their right to have it all without consequence or regret, because, “I’m a proud independent woman”.

    If the vows mean nothing, why agree to them in the first place? Oh, wait, she gets all the “married benefits”, and her husband, all the risk. Because, after all, Disney promised her a partner that must supply all of her needs, and if this person does not supply everything 100% at all times she’s entitled to get those needs met elsewhere. God forbid women learn to compromise or have realistic expectations. This is feminism.

    If you just look for bad qualities, you’ll always find them. You have to look for the good in people too. So not all women cheat. That’s good. But there are a lot. And the number is increasing.

    Men know this, more and more.

  27. Here is the toxicity men considering marriage must deal with:

    You cheated? You’re a nasty bastard abuser who doesn’t care about his family.
    Your wife cheated? You were emotionally distant, worked to much to pay for her expensive habits, and didn’t fulfill her needs, which she never really laid out for you, because she expected you to read her mind.
    The reality? A cheating partner is the same regardless of who it is. This type of change-in-appearance is why many men are skipping marriage in even greater numbers. Why become involved in an institution that blames a wife’s cheating on her husband (no fault divorce)?
    A faithful man, or a loyal one, will still find it hard to sign that paper at the end of the day when so much of his is at risk and there aren’t any laws to protect him against her becoming the failure of their marriage.
    There is, however, a unique view into this. Because of the rise of divorce and promiscuity, many women themselves are growing up without fathers. And this is problematic for future marriage rates.
    From TheFatherLessGeneration statistical database:
    Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are … 92% more likely to get divorced themselves
    So it becomes a repeating cycle, where the man is to blame. If a mother leaves the father and withdraws the father out of her life, she in return is also (nearly double) more likely to get divorced in her life. This is an epidemic, and is not talked about because divorce is told to only effect current marriages. But it’s not true. It effects the kids perceptions as well.
    And deadbeat dads are another issues – 40% of children of divorce lose contact with a parent. More than 90% of the time this is the father, and it is 50-50 in who is at fault: the mom withdrawing the child or the father becoming a deadbeat. But, is it ever assumed it’s the mothers fault? Of course not. Even if she goes to the family courts to restrict his access, it is still his fault for not seeing the kid(s). It is never the woman’s fault, even though- yes- they cheat more than men do. One bad boy can keep several women on the line. Yes, Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus, at least for the bad boys. They have more tail than they can process.
    A final point is another article from the dailymail. It talks a bit about how women are typically seen as the “victims” in a divorce, so men are largely ignored, and the financial devastation garnered behind women freely bouncing from marriage at high rates when they get bored.
    There is a name for this: lose-lose battle. Let’s use the military acronym: BOHICA. Cuz that’s what it is.
    No doubt feminists will start pushing for laws requiring men to marry grossly, obscenely obese Triggleypuffs, with blue hair, and absolutely no idea what discipline, or childraising, or cooperation, is. Women also commit as much domestic violence as men do, and get away with it, because it isn’t prosecuted, as Warren Farrell, among others, has pointed out.
    Marriage, for men, has become a horror movie, of wandering into Six Flags over Hell, with vicious clowns with purple hair out to get them, women who have hearts that could cut a diamond, slags with thousands of satisfied [or at times unsatisfied] customers, domestic violence arrests for being DWM [driving while men], divorce court slaughter houses… remember Monty Python’s apartment designer, who planned for the rotating knives, at the entrance. “What, did that not fit in with your plans?” If intelligent women really knew what feminists were about, they’d be fighting them bitterly. My cousin works for Concerned Women for America, which does what it can, to hold back the feminist tide. They are larger than the NOW. They are one disciplined bunch of ladies. They make the French resistance look like feeble amateurs.
    And for those men that feminists show interest in: notice her crocodile smile, and be aware that she will pull you into the river, and break you up, and eat you alive. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and the emotional scars. And my ex tried to contact me not long ago, through our child. I just said “NO!”. Gosh that felt good.

  28. You haven’t completely described the process. Women work more and more, and are still net negative tax generators for the state and federal government. Men, on the other hand, pay much more in taxes, than they get in benefits. Over a normal lifespan, the government spends MUCH MUCH MORE on benefits and resources for women than it can ever get back in taxes from them. For men it is the precise opposite. Economists said this tax gap- I wonder why the feminists haven’t complained about this horrible inequity- would equalize out as women entered the work force. Equality is a good thing, right? Except, the exact opposite happened. As women entered the workforce en masse the price of wages flatlined. Real wages have been stagnant. More workers for the same jobs meant wages didn’t have to go up. Supply and demand. Add in fewer marriages, and women became more dependent on the government than ever. This is PRECISELY why more women live in poverty today than at any time in American history. But wait, there’s more: these women married the government, so men could pay child support for kids that weren’t theirs and not any genetic product of theirs. Now demand for government benefits for women exploded. And that wasn’t enough, now the feminists want more and more programs to aid and advance the cause of women, because a 4-1 advantage for women in getting government benefits just wasn’t enough- so the tax gap has grown larger than ever before. Families find the cheap and effective way. Government has to pay at least full retail, if not more, and their way is almost always much less effective. Government subsidies are far less efficient than marriage “subsidies” for women, because there is no reason to keep costs low when Uncle is paying. This left more men than usual unemployed, and also who cannot provide, or don’t want to provide, for wives and children. Since men are the “cash cows” funding all this, and feminists are slaughtering the cash cows with #metoo, and false accusations, and quotas, and defamation, we can see an end game, where the government will no longer be able to support women. Government does not produce value; it takes it away from the productive. It’s already happening now. There seems to be less and less tax revenue now. Social security, welfare, medicaid, which women get more of, consume TWO THIRDS of the federal budget now. Infrastructure is crumbling, and there’s no money to repair it. This situation is very comparable to a crack cocaine addiction, with feminists as the drug dealers. We will see the collapse of the federal government, within our lifetimes, if these trends continue. Cory Booker wants a tax credit so people in effect only pay 30% of their income for rent. Great idea, Cory: how the heck are you going to pay for it? Democrats and even Republicans have no problem giving away tax dollars. At some point, though, the well will run dry. Maybe that’s why the Democrats are funding false flag shootings, with brainwashed assassins, to justify taking the constitutional right to bear arms away. The first thing the Nazis, Communists, and any other totalitarian government did, was to deny people arms. Do you really think all those shootings are lone assassins? People in foreign countries know differently, because they aren’t as stupid as Americans. Remember Krystalnacht? The night the Nazis vandalized all Jewish stores in Germany? People forget that the SA also disarmed all Jews, of their firearms. Who filled the ranks of the Gestapo, the Sicherheitsdienst, the SA, and SS? Psychopaths. Psychopaths are easily found in orphanages. JK Rowling had it right, that the psychopath Voldemort grew up in an orphanage. That is where the KGB also got its psychopaths. Get a Russian immigrant talking, on what it’s like to live in a totalitarian system, where citizens have no firearms. It’s truly horrible. The terrorist arm of the Democratic party was the KKK. The KKK was strong in Democratic states. Democrats fought emancipation tooth and nail, and started a bloody Civil War that the country still hasn’t recovered from. Andrew Jackson was one of the founders of the Democratic party. He was a slaveholder. Are you starting to see a connection? They are fostering a new Civil War now. Hillary was friendly with Senator Byrd, of W VA. He was a Klan kleagle. The Democrats are totalitarian, they do not listen to other voices. They and they only know what’s right. There is no difference between them and Mussolini’s blackshirts, except that their ideology is far worse. Sinclair Lewis said that if America ever went fascist, it would be by calling it anti-fascism. That’s what antifa stands for, and they act just like Nazi Sturmabteilung. Look very carefully at how badly the Democrats treat black people. LBJ created the ghettoes, with welfare, and single parent families. Some black people believe the government- read Democrats- even created the drug trade, to make money, because they wanted to re-enslave black people. And who did they do it to first? Black people. Democrats make all kinds of promises, and the inner cities get worse and worse. In the 1910’s, black people were very entrepreneurial. They had to be, to survive. As recently as the 1940’s, black families stayed together more than white families did. Larry Elder points out the government-guided degradation of black people, by Democrats. Clinton’s omnibus crime law put many more black men in jail. VAWA put both parents in jail, and led to violence against black women, to the point that women quit calling for help in DV situations. Detroit is a great example of what decades of Democratic policy can do for a city. So is Philadelphia. So is Bridgeport. So is… and there are others. I lived in Michigan, in the 1970’s, and I wouldn’t have gone to Detroit for any reason. Democrats are hollowing out the middle class, in California, with the same tactics. Rev. Farrakhan pointed out, before the 2016 election, that the Clintons were no friends to black people- and that Clinton’s 3 strikes and you’re out law put many, many more black men in jail. Spending money blindly solves no problems. It’s like running water through a pipe with a thousand holes- it just leaks out. And since Democrats steal all they can, this is a precise analogy. I am not endorsing Republicans, I’m just pointing out what is obvious if you look. I moved from the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts to Corrupticut. A friend of mine had a grandfather, who provided the steel for Interstate highways, when they were constructed. A cost of business was envelopes full of money, to each legislator. My friend asked about sealed bids, and so on. His grandfather laughed, and said, “Were you there to ensure this was followed? No? So how do you know?” All politicians steal. But Democrats steal more. LBJ stole staggering amounts, and got all kinds of fees from defense consultants, during the Vietnam War. Oh, wait, the Vietnam War. Who started it? DEMOCRATS. They had no intention of winning, their goal was getting “fees”. Where did LBJ get his millions of dollars? Maybe he grew it on his ranch.

  29. Lyrics to You Don’t Own Me brought up to date
    Lesley Gore
    You don’t own me
    I’m not just one of your many toys
    You don’t own me
    Don’t say I can’t go with other boys
    And don’t tell me what to do
    Don’t tell me what to say
    And please, when I go out with you
    Don’t put me on display ’cause
    You don’t own me
    Don’t try to change me in any way
    You don’t own me
    Don’t tie me down ’cause I’d never stay
    I don’t tell you what to say
    I don’t tell you what to do

    I’ll just let you be by yourself
    I want nothing of you
    You’re young, throw away your beauty
    Give it away, give it all for free
    You’ll never have a family
    So say and do whatever you please
    And share your love with your cats

  30. Bitch lyrics updated
    Meredith Brooks
    I hate the world today
    So I’ll make you pay
    I know but I can’t change
    Tried to tell you
    But you look at me like maybe
    I’m an angel underneath
    bloody teeth and claws
    To you I’m toxic
    Abandon your dreams
    I’ll destroy you
    I can understand how you’d be so confused
    I don’t envy you
    I’m a little bit of everything
    All rolled into one
    I’m a bitch, I’m a psycho
    I’m a child, can’t be told no
    I’m a sinner, I’m impure
    I do not feel ashamed
    I’m your hell, I’m your death
    I’m nothing in between
    You know you better ghost me while you can, right now
    So dump me as I am
    This may mean
    You’ll have to be a stronger man
    Rest assured that
    If you don’t, you will know terror
    You don’t know of my extremes
    Tomorrow I will change
    And today won’t mean a thing
    I’m a bitch, I’m a psycho
    I’m a child, can’t be told no
    I’m…

  31. Or maybe it is Congress that is toxic? Warren Buffett, in an interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

    “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes,” he told CNBC . “You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP , all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 – before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

    Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
    or less to become the law of the land – all because of public pressure.

    Congressional Reform Act of 2019

    1. No Tenure / No Pension.

    A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
    pay when they’re out of office.

    2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
    Security.

    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
    Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
    the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
    American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

    3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

    4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

    6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

    7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/13. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

    Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
    term(s), then go home and back to work. Let’s end one major source of the toxicity.

  32. The best argument against feminism is trying to have a 15 minute conversation with an average feminist. Nobody in history has been more toxic.

  33. A mediocre Catholic passes on. He gets to the pearly gates, and is referred to an office. He has to enter information into a computer. He enters it all. There is clearly a long line of people waiting, it’s worse than motor vehicles registration. He resigns himself to waiting. Within 3 minutes, though, he is called to an office. A cheerful angel says, “OK, we reviewed your data. We’re going to put you right through into heaven.” The mediocre Catholic says, “but I wasn’t really that good, I thought sure I’d at least have to go to purgatory, maybe even hell.” The angel says, “Oh no, we now have a fast track program for all that. It is called feminism, which brings massive torment into daily life. You did your time in the feminist hell called the USA, so you’ll go straight to heaven.” Just sign here, please, and we’ll fast track you through.

  34. When Feminism Is White Supremacy in Heels
    From tone policing to whitesplaining, the liberal white women’s feminism is more toxic than they realize, explains Rachel Cargle.

    She asked for support, in dealing with an incident, from feminists. But they had more concern about their feelings and ego as opposed to the fight forward for women as a whole. What could have been a much-needed and integral display of solidarity and true intersectionality quickly became a live play-by-play of the toxicity that white-centered feminism can bring to the table of activism.

    It is the type of behavior that rests under the guise of feminism only as long as it is comfortable, only as long it is personally rewarding, only as long as it keeps “on brand.” But if the history of this movement taught us anything, it is that intersectionality in feminism is vital. We cannot forget the ways that suffragettes dismissed the voices of black women, sending them to the backs of their marches, only for black activists like Ida B. Wells and Anna Julia Cooper to make major moves while fighting for the vote in tandem with their fight for rights as black people—ultimately shifting the shape of this country. If there is not the intentional and action-based inclusion of women of color, then feminism is simply white supremacy in heels.

    Going up against liberal progressive white feminists who refuse to let down their guard of “ultimate liberation” to actually learn from women of color—who have been fighting this fight with grit and grace for generations—is the most straining part being a black feminist activist. Still, as disheartening as the actions of many of these women who were “called in” became, my highest hope is that this bizarre episode serves as a lesson, a dissection if you will, of what toxic white feminism actually looks like. Let’s take a dive into a few of the items in The **Toxic** White Feminism Playbook:

    Tone Policing
    When women of color begin to cry out about their pain, frustration, and utter outrage with the system that is continuing to allow our men to murdered, our babies to be disregarded, and our livelihood to be dismissed, we are often met with white women who tell us perhaps we should “say things a little nicer” if we want to be respected and heard.

    Spiritual Bypassing
    The easiest way for white women to skirt around the realities of racism is to just “love and light it away”. When confronted with ways they have offended a marginalized group with their words or actions, they immediately start to demand unity and peace; painting those they harmed as aggressive, mean, or divisive.

    White Savior Complex
    Many white women insist that there is no way they could be part of the problem because of their extensive resume of what they’ve “done for you people.” Instead of listening to what the women of color are trying to express, they instead whip out the Nice Things I’ve Done For Black People In The Past, which often includes everything from “says hi to the black man next door every single morning” to “saved a black child through adoption and treats them just as nicely as my white children.”

    Centering
    This is the most common of all. White women get so caught up in how they feel in a moment of black women expressing themselves that they completely vacuum the energy, direction, and point of the conversation to themselves and their feelings. They start to explain why race is hard for them to talk about, what they think would be a better solution to the topic at hand, and perhaps what women of color can do to make it more palatable.

    As these things play out over and over again, it is made painfully obvious that many white women believe that the worst thing that can happen to them is to be called a racist. Let me be clear, it is not. Seeing your child gunned down in the street by the police unjustly is much worse, being turned away for medical care due to race and underlying biases by medical staff, resulting in death, is much worse, being harassed by authorities only to be charged yourself instead is much worse.

    But even moments of explicit dehumanization to the black community haven’t been able to rally the majority of liberal white women to join us in our fight for racial justice. I’ve learned through my work that white women seem to only digest race issues when it is reframed in the light of (white) feminism. So I often have to lay it out this way:

    When you try to exclude yourself from the conversation of race by saying things like “I don’t see color,” or “I married a black man and have brown kids,” that’s just as irrational as a man saying there is no way he could be sexist or misogynistic because he has a daughter. When you seek to not be lumped into the conversation about oppressive systems against marginalized people, because you view yourself as woke, you are essentially screaming “not all men.”
    When you try to rationalize police brutality by saying “but black people also kill black people,” [black on black murders are very high] you’re coming in with the same argument that men have when they say “she shouldn’t have worn that skirt, she deserves to be raped”. When you walk into black or brown spaces and “suggest” how they can more aptly reach white people on the topic of race you are basically mansplaining, only now it’s whitesplaining how people of color should approach their own activism. When you begin to feel defensive about the conversation of race, demanding explanations, it is like a man walking into a women’s space saying: “Make me feel more comfortable in this moment, even though the point of this space is sorting out how I make you feel uncomfortable everyday in multiple ways.”
    So what does allyship actually look like? Accepting the reality of this country’s dynamics. White skin yields white privilege and an ally is willing to use their privilege to fight with and for those who are marginalized. Allyship means voting for elected officials who have a track record of ensuring the most marginalized among us are heard and advocated for. Allyship means using your sphere of influence whether it be your dining room table or the boardroom of your company to call out racist actions and ideals. Allyship means uplifting the voices and experiences of people of color so that we are not continuously drowned out and ignored.

    What makes allyship so hard for most? Many liberal white woman have an immediate reaction of defense when someone challenges their intentions. And it is in that precise moment they need to stop and realize they are actually part of the problem. It is never the offender who gets to decide when they’ve offended someone. If you feel yourself dismissing the words or experiences of people of color—because you think they’re “overreacting” or because you “didn’t know” or because “it has nothing to do with race”—it’s often due to your ego, not rationale. Listen and learn, instead.

    Dr. Robin DiAngelo, a white woman sociologist who studies critical discourse, reminds us in her new book White Fragility that “the key to moving forward is what we do with our discomfort. We can use it as a door out—blame the messenger and disregard the message. Or we can use it as a door in by asking, Why does this unsettle me? What would it mean for me if this were true?”

    Feminists are even toxic to each other.

  35. Women vs Women: ‘Toxic femininity’ is Real, And it’s Time to Talk About it
    Are women capable of causing destruction, including for other women? Yes – and that is toxic femininity for you.
    Asavari Singh

    While we can’t ignore ‘toxic air’ and ‘toxic politics’, of late the conversation has been around “toxic masculinity”. It’s the boss who responds to sexual rejection by taking away key projects, it’s the lover who demands a “blow job, right now”, it’s the friend who says “get over it” when a woman cries about sexual harassment. However, although the term “toxic masculinity” is used loosely to imply that men, in general, are insensitive beasts, this is not true. What toxic masculinity really refers to is when stereotypically male traits that are endorsed by a culture take forms that damage society and ultimately men themselves. Strength morphs into violence, assertiveness warps into entitlement, stoicism is twisted into emotional stuntedness. The result is men who can’t take no for an answer, who are unable to empathize with others, and who sometimes become the subjects of #MeToo posts.

    But as any self-help guru worth their salt will tell you: where there is a yin, there is a yang. Is there such a thing as toxic femininity? I believe there is, and it takes many forms.

    It’s the manager who verbally abuses teammates and then blames pre-menstrual syndrome, it’s the lover who withholds sex until she gets her way about a vacation, it’s the counsellor who empathizes so deeply with a client that she tells her to file a false rape case. Toxic femininity is when women use their gender to obtain certain privileges. It is when noxious, indirect modes of confrontation are masked with gentleness. It is when empathy turns into ethical shortsightedness. Toxic femininity might include:

    Urgent whispers that stop when you walk into the room. When you ask what the secret is, they say, “nothing”.

    An offhand comment about your shoes, elegantly summing up how you just cannot fit in.

    She’s the kindest boss you ever had, yet why is her name on the report you authored?

    You once bonded over feminism but she treats you like a pariah now that you’ve had a baby.

    Constant comments about your body, but how can you be offended? She’s a woman after all.

    Traditionally feminine values such as empathy, compassion, nurturance, team-playing—whether they are expressed in men or women—are already being valorized, with good reason, as being generally better for society. However, just as we erred by placing male traits on a pedestal (look where that got us!), we also need to exercise caution when we extol feminine virtues.

    Thing is, men and women are part of the same species. It’s just that we’ve been conditioned differently and so our gendered pathologies are different. Men have long had a physical and social advantage, allowing them to aggress more forcefully and openly. Women have been deeply and systematically oppressed so they have had to hone their skills in subtler but also devastating forms of warfare.

    Just as toxic masculinity harms men and women, so does toxic femininity. Except that toxic femininity has not really been unpacked in mainstream discourse, except for the poorly thought through rantings of men’s rights groups. This is because in many cultures women have only recently started entering positions of power and leadership in the public sphere.

    Their participation in the workforce is still low. Archetypes such as the smothering mother, the entrapping lover, the scheming mother-in-law, the backstabbing friend have been around for a long time but they have been seen as individual nuisances in the private sphere. However, these types of toxicities are likely to get a corporate “makeover” as more women assume their rightful place in society and in larger decision-making. Female forms of power-seeking and covert aggression will be more evident and more capable of inflicting greater damage.

    There is a lot of discussion around making workplaces better for women, but an inconvenient fact seems to have been lost along the way: ****women are aggressors too, particularly against others of the same gender.****

    In a recent study, more than 70% of women reported feeling bullied by their female colleagues. This is compatible with the findings of a 2014 study by the Workplace Bullying Institute that found that while more males are bullies, they are a bit more equal opportunity about it (57% female targets and 43% male targets). Women prefer to unleash on other women (68% female targets, 32% male targets). There is nothing surprising about this.

    Because of how society has been structured, women have traditionally targeted other women, usually within domestic or personal settings. You have the mother-in-law with her handy can of kerosene, friendly neighbourhood aunties who make humiliating observations about your reproductive status, friends who patiently eat biscuits while they plot to destroy your standing in a social group. At the workplace too, women keep other women in line in various ways: malicious gossip, rumour campaigns, the threat of social exclusion and disapproval. This kind of aggression is often difficult to call out since it is operates under the cover of sweet smiles and friendly greetings. Women can be really, really good at plausible deniability—“Oh I forgot to CC you in about the junket invite, silly me” or “I thought you didn’t want the promotion because you have kids to think of” or “We didn’t call you for lunch because you’re so quiet we sometimes we just forget you exist tee hee”.

    Women, more than men, exert crushing pressure on each other to look a certain way and girls’ cliques can feel as exclusionary and noxious as boys’ clubs. Also, some women colleagues are not downright malicious but they are firmly allied to whoever is in power. They may offer you empathy and snacks from their tiffin box, but if you complain to them about the big boss sexually harassing you, you may not be able to bank on them to actually support you. It is the job of feminist discourse to promote balance and equality in society, and that includes intervening when women drag other women down (although feminists themselves are notorious for in-fighting).

    In 2017, a media company gave women the option to take the first day of their periods off. I’ll reserve my opinion on that, but in one of my workplaces, women would have a standing ploy to cadge a sickie from a male boss. “Just tell him you have your period and he won’t be able to tolerate the embarrassment!” Others would cite “family pressures” to avoid working late even if they didn’t have any, which did a disservice to the women who were actually struggling. Some did not want to do certain types of assignments, but instead of stating their preferences clearly they would make mysterious “excuses” about “woman problems”. Female bosses were often highly skeptical but male managers acquiesced quickly. Some women I know would refuse to carry their own laptop bags to the parking lot during their pregnancies (uncomplicated ones) and make the office peon do it.

    Such behaviours, when used regularly as tactics to get perks, harm general perceptions of a woman’s ability and credibility. Women, in general, are seen as “unfit” to do some types of jobs. This could change if more of us spoke up assertively, right from the start, about our preferences and goals for our schedules and career paths rather than feeding into stereotypes about women as the weaker sex.

    Some women also deploy their sexuality in various degrees (ranging from, say, signing off e-mails with “kiss you, miss you” to suggesting the possibility of sex), to achieve strategic ends. It is not uncommon to see professional spaces being rife with mating behaviours from women and men, which is problematic both ways. It creates a confusing environment where the dance of flirtation could go wrong for either party. Incidentally, I once had an older woman boss who liked to leverage the sexuality of younger women on the team to pander to powerful superiors at functions. It made her look good, she said if the young women dressed sexily and showed cleavage.

    All the above examples, of course, show how women are complicit in perpetuating the patriarchal order but nothing will change if we absolve them of accountability, or worse, dub them as victims too.

    Finally, as more women gain in power and go higher up in the food chain, women’s aggressions are likely to evolve and become more like what we identify as male patterns. A study found that male and female bosses share the same typically masculine traits. While this could be a function of having “what it takes” to get power, it could also be a function of power, which as many studies have found, has a naturally corrupting effect. Already, in Western societies we see more women committing sexual offences. It’s established fact that men are terrible, but women are catching up.

    We need to dispel the myth that men can never be victims of women, especially as parity grows between genders. One in seven men said they had been sexually harassed in a 2017 Marketplace-Edison Research Poll, and one in five complaints filed with the US Equal Opportunity Commission were by males. They too suffered stigma, shame and gaslighting, along with the burden of the widespread belief that men always want sex and cannot be exploited by women.

    Does this mean women should be kept subjugated so that they don’t become “as bad” as men? Certainly not. The case I am making here is for an inclusive movement to address sexual harassment and workplace bullying in all its forms.

    Even as women embrace ambition and power, they feel pressurized to be seen as agreeable and non-confrontational. This conflict may be resolved through covert modes of conflict and passive aggression, which I have described earlier. It may also lead to poor feedback and thus poor performance of the company. At a publishing house I worked in many years ago, a managing editor was known for her propensity to redo the shoddy work of her subordinates. This is because she hated criticizing others. Everyone loved her for “kindness”, but she got burned out and quit and the subordinates never improved their skills or took responsibility. Her “kindness” was both a way of exerting control and maintaining a saintly image, but it backfired.

    Empathy, a trait that is seen as highly desirable, is also a continuum with a toxic component. A good example of this is the #MeToo movement. When feelings and beliefs are given precedence over all else, any social justice movement would stand on shaky ground. #BelieveHer goes the hashtag but it truly fails the “veil of ignorance” test— to put it crudely, would you want yourself or your loved ones to be at the receiving end of a movement that is so firmly allied to a particular section of people that it doesn’t even want to hear a rebuttal? #MeToo is driven by empathy, but this is one of its greatest weaknesses too. Women have historically not been taken seriously enough, so the solution has been to promote unquestioning faith for every woman and to quash skepticism and inquiry with outrage. In their mass display of empathy, some feminists are playing into the hands of hostile parties who think that #MeToo is riddled with false accusations and is terminally biased. The message gets less buy-in, which is a pity.

    When we speak of change, of equality, of fairness, we must include all of humanity. We cannot do that by pitting the genders against each other as believable vs. unbelievable, victim vs. perpetrator, good vs. bad, saint vs. sinner. These binaries do a disservice to women as well as men. Have women had a raw deal compared to men? Yes. Are they generally less violent than men? Yes. But are all women the same? No. Are women capable of causing destruction, including for other women? Yes – and that is toxic femininity for you.

  36. Despite the headline-grabbing mutually assured destruction war between President Trump and Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, another story continues to grab headlines, memes, videos and comments. We’re talking about the toxic feminism that clearly lies behind Gillette’s absurd and ill-advised “toxic masculinity” ad. That’s loosely tied to the Procter & Gamble brand’s (once?) popular line of razors and razor blades.

    The Gillette ad continues to stir up a hornets’ nest-worth of vitriol, because it goes where no corporate ad for a major product should go. It effectively attacks and demeans at least 50 percent of its customers. And, given that Gillette razors are primarily a product that men buy, a substantial majority of the company’s customers have been turned off by this latest useless battle to hit the top of the PC / Virtue-signaling Sweepstakes.

    Virtue-signaling: A toxic epidemic spreading among American businesses
    This is a serious issue. American businesses, again and again, willingly or unwillingly, continue succumb to threats from today’s Marxists and Stalinist Cultural Police. But by indulging in left-wing virtue-signaling, American companies and their CEOs damage their companies and alienate prime customers. Feminism 3.0 Stalinists have somehow coerced major razor blade manufacturers to debase themselves.

    “Bullying. Harassment. Is this the best a man can get? It’s only by challenging ourselves to do more, that we can get closer to our best. To say the right thing, to act the right way. We are taking action at http://www.thebestmencanbe.org. Join us.”

    Are they kidding? Most guys are insulted by this PC dreck. None of us are going to join. Or, at least, no real men are going to join. They have no use for the thinly concealed Marxism of today’s toxic feminism.

    Comments on the Gillette video were massively negative. We sampled just a few of the constant stream of negative comments on the YouTube posting of this astonishingly insulting Gillette commercial. They were overwhelmingly negative. Gillette removed an unknown number of negative comments that had been posted earlier. So the already high ratio of hate mail may actually be much higher than listed.

    Over the past few years, I’ve noticed that the comments to an article or video can be funnier, more insightful, or more outrageous than the original. When it comes to fighting back against the current onslaught of toxic feminism, this selection of comments on Gillette’s toxic video, gathered over the past weekend, are most enlightening. Here’s a representative sample.

    An amusing sample of comments (unedited)
    Gillette the best a cisgender soy boy can get.
    This is why Trump won.
    My gf says woman are far more toxic then men
    As a very successful, loving, and responsible husband (married 32 years) and father of two confident young adults (male and female), i find this ad INCREDIBLY insulting. Gillette has NO BUSINESS assuming most men are bad and misogynistic. I’m not buying ANOTHER product from these self-important morons. How DARE you, Gillette…
    Deleting comments and dislikes—Gillette on full damage control now.
    gillette: sells razors to 80% male consumers; gillette marketing team: I know lets insult 80% of our customer base; head of gillete: Perfect!
    Buh bye social justice warriors at Gillette. No more products in my home from you.
    How to destroy a company’s reputation in under 2 minutes by Gillette.
    I just love being preached to about what an evil white male I am.
    Hey, Gillette, here’s something: Get woke, get broke. I’m abandoning all of my Gillette blades and switching to a non wokescold company that doesn’t pander to rising toxic feminism.
    Massive FAIL. Get in the bin, you virtue signalling dolts.

    A more serious, but still negative comment on Gillette and toxic feminism (unedited)
    “Gillette I don’t think you realise why this advert is such a terrible mistake. Your razors sell at a premium price point. Everyone knows this is not due to quality. You have a globally recognised brand that people are aware of before they start shaving and while it’s relatively poor value for money, people develop a kind of loyalty to shaving brands. In other words, the strength of the Gillette brand is due to the perceived relationship your customers have with the brand. These customers are the very people you are attacking with this ad. Make no mistake, people know they are paying over the odds for Gillette products, and if you destroy the brand relationship, what reason do people have to keep buying?

    “Put yourself in a customer’s shoes – a guy who says “I buy Gillette, I know it’s a bit of a rip off but I’ve always used it and so did my dad and I like the adverts with Tiger Woods/Federer etc.”. When you attack this person (who deep down always knew you were ripping them off), you destroy that emotional relationship with the brand – your customer knows they have plenty of options to get better quality and/or cheaper alternatives, and now they have no reason not to. There are people who are praising you for this advert. But they are not people who buy razors. If I were you I would remove every trace of this advert, but I think you’re already too late. By the way I WAS a customer of yours. Goodbye”

    Two anti-Gillette commercial comments from very different famous dudes
    I’ve used @Gillette razors my entire adult life but this absurd virtue-signalling PC guff may drive me away to a company less eager to fuel the current pathetic global assault on masculinity.
    Let boys be damn boys.
    Let men be damn men. https://t.co/Hm66OD5lA4

    — Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 14, 2019

    So nice to see @Gillette jumping on the “men are horrible” campaign permeating mainstream media and Hollywood entertainment. I for one will never use your product again. https://t.co/uZf7v4sFKm

    — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 14, 2019

    The Gillette anti-commercial jam-pile continues
    Gillette’s sanctimonious, anti-male commercial even roused the ire of the semi-anonymous “Tyler Durdens” of politico-financial website ZeroHedge fame. Here’s an unedited slice.

    “Dear men, razor brand Gillette wants you to know that you need to shed your inherent toxic masculinity – that all men have (trust them) and have been making excuses for, and haven’t done anything about until now.

    “The add, dubbed “We Believe” begins with a montage of bullying and sexism – as a pack of wild, toxically masculine white boys tear around, leaving behind a wake of misery and abuse…

    “Reached for comment by the Wall Street Journal, Gillette brand director for North America Pankaj Bhalla said ‘This is an important conversation happening, and as a company that encourages men to be their best, we feel compelled to both address it and take action of our own,’ adding ‘We are taking a realistic look at what’s happening today, and aiming to inspire change by acknowledging that the old saying “Boys Will Be Boys” is not an excuse. We want to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and hope all the men we serve will come along on that journey to find our “best” together.’”

    “‘Yeah, no.’”

  37. Toxic masculinity??? In the USA, 43% of boys are raised by a single woman. 78% of school teachers are female. So almost half the males have 100% female influence at home and ~80% influence at school. Toxic masculinity isn’t the problem. Lack of masculinity is. Who drove men out of the home? The state. We are talking about toxicity of the state.

  38. There are two ways to deal with toxicity.

    1. Assume you have no control. Blame large, mysterious outside forces for all your problems. Blame your past. Blame outsiders. Blame ancestors. Blame everyone else. Blame the system. This is very similar to revving the engine, when it is in neutral. You get a lot of noise, and smoke, but the car doesn’t go anywhere.

    2. Assume *YOU DO HAVE CONTROL*. At least over your own choices, thoughts, and actions. Identify the number one problem you deal with. Identify something you can do to deal with that, today. Do it. Notice how you feel, now that you have control. Ask questions to train your Reticular Activating System to notice more such opportunities. “What else could I do, today, to stay on the path of solving this problem?” How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

    There is an old story, about a contest between the Wind, and the Sun. Each were arguing, about who was the more powerful. They saw a traveller, on the road, who had an overcoat on. The Wind said, “I am powerful! I shall force this man to remove his coat, with my power!” The wind blew, and blew, soon at hurricane force. The man, fearful, hid behind a rock outcropping, and held his coat ever tighter. The wind continued to blow. The man cocooned into the rock. In time, the wind grew tired. Then the Sun took over. The Sun simply smiled. In a few minutes, the man got up, looked around, and resumed his journey. The Sun continued to smile. The man started sweating. In a couple of minutes, he removed his coat, because he was hot.

    I heard a social worker, in a subsidized housing complex, tell me a story. She saw all the single parent families, single mothers mostly. Their boys were getting into trouble. She found a couple of Air Force veterans, and asked if they would run a Boy Scout troop. They were willing- if she was present at every meeting, so that they couldn’t be accused of anything. So she paid that price, and was present at every meeting. Now the boys had something to occupy them, and got into much less trouble. She didn’t once mention toxic masculinity, or feminism, or any other ideology. She is fiercely independent, divorced, and so on. But she was also smart. She identified a problem, and started asking for help. She got the help. If we could focus Americans on this simple approach, like solving problems right in front of us, we would have far less trouble, and much happier people. Suzanne- having a supportive community is extremely helpful to maintaining married relationships. Maybe you’d like to have that as a topic?

  39. Students in a class shared stories of their favorite childhood moments. A young American woman in her early 20s smiled as she remembered of father-daughter camping trips. This yearly event, she recounted, had been something of a family ritual. Picking up on an awkward pause in the class conversation, she commented with a hint of irony that in today’s age, the sight of a father and daughter sharing a small tent would “seem a little creepy.” The young lady’s comments gave me pause to wonder. The ease with which the father and daughter concepts could be associated with “creep” marked the widespread normalization of a rapid cultural shift in common assumptions about gender, sexuality, and social interactions at large. This much the anthropologist in me could recognize. As a man and father of two boys, another part of me — this one closer to the heart — felt a little more troubled. I thought of my young boys and wondered what it might be like to be discovering one’s manhood in a culture that actively preaches against “toxic masculinity”; a culture, to be precise, that overwhelming associates masculinity with risk, violence, and an inner essence tainted with sexual aggression. I also knew (the anthropologist in me again) that these associations were not entirely unfounded.

    The human mind is not well equipped to examine counterintuitive facts that violate our expectations. Our expectations are heavily modulated by cultural norms. These are norms we all know and obey, often without knowing that we know them. In a culture where one version of feminism has become an obligatory moral norm, pointing out that men fare much worse than women in many indicators of well-being is likely to be interpreted as “misogynist.” Any talk of men’s issues is also likely to be read as a call for victimhood. In this version of the victimhood story, some men get to claim that women are the “real” oppressors. It is both interesting and alarming to note that competition for victim status is found on both sides of the gender equality debate.

    Now more than ever in the wake of the #MeToo crisis, it may be wise to remember that complementarities, rather than competition between genders, is the healthy cultural attitude to promote. The point, then, is not to fight for power or victimhood, but to remember how the sexes (biologically) and the genders (culturally) were selected to work together.

    Stereotypes about genders and other categories of persons are found in all cultures, and they have been around for as long as we have been a symbolic species. Stereotypes exist for the purpose of informational efficiency. They describe, however crudely, patterns of behaviors and statistical regularities in the world that can be figured out with no explicit instruction. Babies recognize patterns in the world and form mental templates to organize this information into stereotypes. Stereotyped behavior along sexed lines in the animal kingdom looks roughly like stereotyped gendered behavior among humans. This is why, in addition to roughly similar gender archetypes found across cultures, we know that human behavior and the cultural patterning of behavior are rooted in our evolved biology.

    Stereotypes can also be plain wrong. Because the human mind is not very good at handling complexity, it tends to simplify the world and infer patterns where there are none: this is why we are prone to gambler’s fallacy, superstition, and conspiracy theories. Cultural groups need to provide efficient stories to promote and enforce social norms that are good for the survival of the group. Lay people call this kind of storytelling “morality.” Psychologists call it rule-governed behavior.

    All cultures actively promote different stereotypes and ideal types. Some cultural stories are nuanced, and others less so. Some are so simplified as to promote conspiracy theories. Some stereotypes are like mind viruses. Undernourished bodies become weak and vulnerable to infections. Undernourished minds are weak and vulnerable to mind viruses. All archetypes that promote crowd madness, witch-hunts, public hangings, and genocides are toxic. When a man is unanimously condemned to death”, says the Talmud, “he must be released at once.” Reflect on that.

    Gender archetypes usually describe worst-case and best-case ideal types of men and women. Archetypes function like memes in which we package, propagate, and promote moral stories about the kinds of men and women we should and shouldn’t be. Across cultures and throughout histories, these archetypes have proven to be highly similar.

    The worst-case ideal type for men is usually too aggressive, selfish, and not caring enough. The worst-case ideal type for women is usually coddling and manipulative. Similarly, cultures don’t differ very much in where the best-case ideal type should fit on this spectrum.

    The best-case archetype for a man is usually strong, protecting, and generous. The ideal woman is usually beautiful, caring, and generous. There is a broader cultural difference in the next ideal sub-type, but the general picture looks something like this: traditionally, men’s role in caregiving is to protect the family. In child-rearing, men usually toughen up children and socialize them to face the challenges of the outside world. Women typically attend to minute needs that men aren’t very good at noticing. Both boys and girls need masculine types to toughen them, and feminine types to make them more delicate and attentive. Cross-cultural research has shown that fathers usually favor rough-and-tumble play over fine-motor subtle play. Universally, male caregivers also favor some version of the child-father camping or hunting trip ritual.

    All cultures recognize the complementarities of men and women, from the anatomical complementarity that makes coitus and reproduction possible, to the complementary ways in which men and women use their strengths to help keep the species alive. The spectrum of masculine and feminine ideal types is also universally recognized as porous. Men can — indeed should — embody some feminine traits, and women can and should be more masculine in some domains. All cultures have an archetype for very effeminate men and masculine women. Some cultures, like the Amerindian Berdache type or the Filipino Bakla type, have fully accepted social roles that “opposite” types can integrate. Many cultures identify very masculine women and very effeminate men as unbalanced, or negative types.

    The risk of over-aggression in males and over-nurturing in women is recognized in all societies. The same is true of social cluelessness in males and social manipulation in women. Robust cross-cultural psychological findings support the view that male and female traits are normally distributed along biological lines. Male are more aggressive and impulsive on average, and not as good as females at paying attention to other people’s needs. As in all normal distribution curves, there is a considerable amount of overlap and individual differences.

  40. -continued- Cultural differences in masculine and feminine types often mirror the idealized archetypes elevated as moral models in different societies. Philosopher Ian Hacking calls this phenomenon “looping effects”: human biology, experience, and personality traits can be malleable, and tend to fit the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the world. But there are strong limits to this malleability. It is an “add-on,” rather than the founding core of symbolically enriched human biology. This last point bears retelling and helps clear the muddied conceptual waters surrounding the contemporary archetype of “toxic masculinity.”

    Is his introduction to Jordan Peterson’s controversial book, 12 Rules for Life, the Canadian psychiatrist Norman Doidge raised concerns about a deep, invisible contradiction that underpins the current culture of social justice on university campuses.
    On the one hand, Doidge pointed out, most young people schooled after the 1990s have been taught that all morality is relative, and that everything from sex to power to success is “socially constructed.” This leaves little room for identifying evolutionarily stable patterns of behavior and places the locus of — or the “blame for” — all problems on nebulous “social forces.”

    The next contradiction is harder to discern. In spite of its relativist claims, the culture of social justice actively promotes one kind of highly rigid morality about power, sex, and human relations. This moral story is then grounded in highly stereotyped models and ideal types of “identity.” All those who are not identified in the “cis-heteronormative white supremacist patriarchy,” then, get to leverage their “disempowered” identity status as a marker of virtue. This is an example of an overly simplistic, logically flawed, “superstitious” moral story.

    “Toxic masculinity” (TM) is a highly salient, but awkwardly fitting feature in the conceptual architecture of this invisible contradiction. In the grander scheme of human structures of myth, TM is simply a worst-case ideal type: a fairy tale with some basis in biology and broad cross-cultural relevance. The TM myth serves the useful purpose of promoting socially desirable behavior among males — men shouldn’t be bullies, men shouldn’t rape. What healthy mind would disagree with that?

    In the current scheme of 21st-century feminist mythology, the TM story is also the Master Archetype in an archetype-hungry culture that pretends not to use archetypes.

    Invoking “Toxic Femininity” (TF for short, a worst-case female ideal type) in a 21st-century discussion is not likely to be well received. Toxic Femininity archetypes, however, are also universal. When psychoanalysis still dominated the psychological science scene, a slew of children’s personality traits from autism to introversion were routinely blamed on a spectrum of feminine bad-mother types, from hysterical, castrating harpies to “refrigerator mothers.”

    Many of my female professor friends still report that their male students are culturally ill-prepared to respect female pedagogical authority. Most men and boys still perceive women leaders through a binary archetypical lens; one can either be the “sexy girlfriend” or the “bitchy mother.” In some cases, older, sexy girlfriend types can gravitate to the “nurturing mother” type. Many boys don’t know how to interact with and perceive women outside of these templates. These templates exist in boys’ minds, but rarely in the women themselves. These are poorly raised boys, or boys raised with bad stories. More to the point, these are boys raised with very confusing, nonsensical stories about sex and gender.

    As psychological science and public culture progressed from unduly mother-centric models, and as the first and second waves of feminism took hold, TF archetypes have rightfully been discarded for being stigmatizing. TM archetypes, at the same time, have been propelled to the forefront of public attention.

    The advent of third-wave feminism — which denies masculine and feminine essences outside of “patriarchal” socialization processes — has now taken us too far in the denial of nature on the one hand, and the invisible imbalance of essentializing men only for their worst-case traits.

    How then, can we return to strong and balanced gender archetypes?

    The TM story certainly has a place in these stories. If we recognize the importance of sex-based selected traits, we are compelled to notice that men do require strong cultural nurturing to balance their aggression, temper their domination, and cultivate protecting roles. This is an old evolutionary story. On average, father-child interaction is almost entirely absent among our closest cousins, the great apes. Some chimpanzee males, however, have been known to step up and occasionally rescue, adopt, and raise orphaned baby chimps on their own.

    Successfully securing paternal investment — an essential predictor of quality offspring in humans — has been and remains an important bio-cultural challenge for human females. There is always a strong risk that men, after impregnating women, will take off forever into their cultural equivalent of a long hunting trip and binge-drinking session. This is also why, on average, human females have evolved to be uniquely attractive to males. Contrary to popular belief, women across cultures are much more likely than men to use their attractiveness and genetic status to rise in their societies. For men of low social status, genetic status matters little. In highly stratified societies, low-status males are most often excluded from the reproductive market, and high-status males monopolize the high-quality females. From a Darwinian perspective, women come out on top. Societies that produce packs of horny, mateless, purposeless males run into a lot of trouble. This is when the camping-drinking sessions run out of hand. All cultures have produced stories about the tragicomedy of this challenge. The bachelor party ritual found among Anglo-Saxons is a way to keep bidding farewell to this evolutionary problem.

    A common worst-case female archetype across cultures, thus, warns against the femme fatale who secures social success through her attractiveness and sexual favors, and leads men to social, financial, and emotional ruin. In the traditional men’s huts of the Amazon and Papua New Guinea, ethnographers report that common talk among men centers on the awe-inspiring, terrifying power of the all-swallowing vagina. Gossip from the female hut usually centers on the gullibility of baby-like men who think with their penis. This is the cultural equivalent of the men-in-the-sauna and women-at-the-hair-salon rituals.

  41. -continued-
    Like the Toxic Masculinity story, these Toxic Femininity stories serve an important social purpose. Both stories must be told, and the good versions of both stories must be actively promoted instead.

    All cultures have crafted rites of initiation for boys and girls for this reason. It has been recognized in all cultures that girls must be initiated by older women into the arts of womanhood, and boys by older men. Boys must also spend time with women role models and their girl peers to learn to relate to, but also to seduce and be respectful to the other sex. The same is true for girls. Boys and girls, finally, need rites of passage to get to know one another and learn to consume and cultivate their need for seduction. All cultures need their equivalent of Bar Mitzvahs, Bat Mitzvahs, prom nights, marriages, father-son, father-daughter, and mixed-family camping trips with strong aunt and uncle role models. In the language of public health, having access to varied kinds of gender-specific and mixed-gender seduction, interaction, and initiation rituals grounded in a rich cultural folklore is an immense protective factor against poor life outcomes. In strength-based language, these gendered rituals are crucial mediators and indicators of community well-being.

    The rites of boyhood and manhood, such as the ones cultivated in fraternities and athletic cultures, are now unduly associated with the “toxic” archetypes. Those who promote the importance of initiation into manhood, like the poet Robert Bly, psychologist Jordan Peterson, or motivational speaker David Deida, are typically dismissed as quack mystics, misogynists, or “alt-right” conservatives. This is a grave injustice to their message of strength, peace, mutual respect, and mutual veneration.
    Consider this essay a rational call for the importance of such rites, and for the return of masculinity as a good ideal type. How, then, should we raise our boys?

    There is an old American story that fathers used to tell their boys. The story describes three types of men: wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. Wolves are lonely and strong, and they prey on sheep and weak wolves alike. Sheep are naïve and weak, and get eaten by wolves. Sheepdogs are strong and reliable, and they protect the sheep against the wolves. Some Navy SEALS cite this story.

    As a father, I expect my sons to be sheepdogs. In my household, of which I assume the head-role as a single father, masculinity is at once a source of pride and identity and a goal to aspire to. As a man, I am not always good at routines and schedules, at matching socks or mending clothes when they are old and ripped. The following maxim, however, is non-negotiable. The simple version of what we aspire to goes like this: Strong mind, strong body, strong heart.

    The nuanced story goes like this:

    Be strong and caring; protect the weak.

    Respect your elders and hierarchies; question them when you are led to be weak or selfish.

    Offer your services to women, elders, and the weak (carry heavy things, offer your coat, offer your bed and sleep on the floor, feed others first, hold the door open for everyone).

    As a rule, your needs always come last. But if you don’t take care of yourself well, you won’t be able to take care of others.

    Never be a victim; when bad things happen to you, the onus is on you to create the right mindset to recover and thrive.

    Never blame others for your own feelings.

    Do not encourage victimhood in others.

    It is good to cry for the joys and pains of others. Never cry out of pity for yourself.

    Always be kind and generous. Be firm and know your boundaries. No one respects a man without boundaries. Women do not like weak men.

    Rights and obligations are given; privileges are earned.

    Try new things, learn new skills; learn skills that will make you a good protector.

    The simplest stories are often the best ones; the simplest solutions are not always best; choose stairs over elevators.

    Be open to changing your mind; don’t change your mind too much.

    Go on a walkabout at least twice in your life.

    When about to give up, try just a little longer; try a little longer next time.

    Have women friends you won’t seduce; spend time with aunties and grandmothers.

    Observe and study the mysteries and beauties of femininity.

    The sheepdog story is a good one. It is also found in all cultures. As a father and a man, it is my role to pass it on to the youth. The story is gendered first and foremost because I am a man. I have no daughter of my own, but I teach the same story to my sisters’ and friends’ girls when I take them outside for initiation into the world. Where I tell boys to take care of girls and each other, I tell girls to take care of boys and each other.

    I would tell the same story to my children if they were gay. People with a stable preference for same-sex partners are also found everywhere. Remember the point about conspiracy theories. Homophobic archetypes are bad archetypes. Toxic Masculinity archetypes, when presented alone without any comparable context, are also toxic archetypes.

    Where the new archetype of “gender fluidity” fits in this picture is a difficult question. This archetype is still under construction in its current form, and it is still counterintuitive to many people. If more individuals find that the archetype is a good fit for them, that will be a good thing. For those who awkwardly try it on like clothes that don’t fit well, that is a hard, but useful learning experience for everyone involved. For parents of children who cannot fit in a clear side of these stories, it is just useful to teach the full story — the story of masculine and feminine types, good and bad.

    Some people, then, may simply be taught that they fit into the full picture and must stick to the good sub-types. In some Amerindian contexts, such people were known as “two-spirited.” Legend has it that they were recognized as natural leaders for their ability to embody the full human spectrum. We are often told that everyone can be a leader, and that everyone is gender-fluid at the core. That is simply not true. Like all good leaders, it is likely that full-spectrum people are a good, rare breed.

    We need better cultural institutions to help people find where they fit best.

  42. Toxic masculinity is a topic that gets a lot of space in feminist debate. But the corollary of toxic femininity rarely gets a mention, despite how necessary it is to interrogate the gender roles that damage all of us.

    The term is often misunderstood to mean that masculinity itself (and therefore all men) are toxic. What it’s actually describing is the damage caused by the limitations traditional expectations of manhood impose on men. Toxic masculinity says the only allowable emotions for men are rage, lust and dominance. Despite the requirement of strength, men are also seen as helpless when they are in the grip of those emotions.

    Toxic femininity says that women are responsible for inciting anger and lust in men and are therefore to blame for anything men do to them. Toxic femininity says that women are responsible for inciting anger and lust in men and are therefore to blame for anything men do to them. Toxic feminism blames men for all of women’s problems. This denial of agency disempowers women.

    Equally, strong women who express desire, opinions, agency and ambition beyond their role in the lives of men are also punished. They are harpies, ballbreakers, sluts and probably crazy. Both men and women who have internalised toxic gender roles will scorn them for their refusal to conform. While there is some truth in this, it is an insufficient model.

    These toxic, limitng gender roles are insidious and omnipresent. And they are utterly dependent on each other, neither can exist in isolation. The only way to end one of them is to tear them both down. We need to see them, talk about them, push back on the implicit and explicit expressions of toxic gender roles and most importantly of all, make sure we show our children how damaging they are to all of us.

    Perhaps the best place to start is a simple story: “When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don’t blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce. Yet if we have
    problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive
    effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason
    and argument. That is my experience. No blame, no
    reasoning, no argument, just understanding. If you
    understand, and you show that you understand, you can
    love, and the situation will change”

  43. As we consider toxicity, let’s pretend, just for a second, that feminism was addictive, the way say crystal meth is. Feminism turns women into creatures that are not dissimilar to methheads. Is it possible to become addicted to pure hate? Let’s see some signs of addiction:

    Loss of interest in usual activities
    Neglecting relationships
    Abusive treatment of others
    Isolating themselves from others
    Sudden shift in social groups
    Risky financial behavior, such as cashing out savings in order to buy stuff
    Criminality, such as stealing money in order to buy stuff
    Obsessive focus on a particular issue or task
    Loss of concern over others, especially children
    Forgetting important dates, times or events
    Increased aggression or violent behavior
    Clumsiness (decreased fine motor skills)
    Distracted or abusive behavior in social situations
    Risky sexual behavior
    Erratic sleep patterns, such as insomnia and hypersomnia
    Hyperactivity and high energy
    Obsession with fantasy situations
    Strange conspiracy theories
    Extreme loss of appetite (eating little or not at all for several days)
    Displaying a tic or twitch (a small, repetitive behavior, such as pulling hair or picking at a particular spot on the skin)

    Is it possible that feminism is an addiction, as much as addiction to crystal meth is?

  44. Brianna da Silva
    Nov 14, 2018 · 15 min read

    I’ve been struggling with the label of “feminist” lately. I used it proudly for a while, during my online activism, on my podcast, and with friends and family.
    But I’m beginning to wonder if the word “feminist” doesn’t mean what it used to — or perhaps, doesn’t mean what it should. To explain what I mean, let me tell you a little story. When I was a young girl, I learned two contradictory messages about my place in the world. First, my parents taught me that I could be whatever I wanted to be. I could be a CEO, or an astronaut, or president of the United States. They told me I was capable and talented, and that they believed in me. They promised they would support me, no matter what dream I pursued. My parents taught me that I could be whatever I wanted to be. I could be a CEO, or an astronaut, or president of the United States.
    I internalized this idea very young, and I dreamed far and wide, without limits.
    At seven years old, I dreamed of creating businesses. At nine years old, I dreamed of becoming a world-famous author. At eleven years old, I dreamed of directing blockbuster action-adventure movies. I dreamed of being a leader, because at my core, that’s who I was by nature. The second message came as part of my evangelical Christian upbringing, and it was this: Women must be subservient to men in marriage and in the Church. At first, I didn’t see how this contradicted the first message. I believed what I was told—that it was right for wives to submit to their husbands. I believed the lie that this was the only relationship structure that would lead to a healthy, lasting, beautiful, and desirable marriage. I believed what I was told — that it was right for wives to submit to their husbands. I believed that men were better suited to lead in spiritual matters. Sure, I could be a CEO, or even the president, but it was wrong for me to be a pastor. It was wrong for me take a man’s place as head of the household, which was, according to evangelical theology, an inherently spiritual position.
    Though I accepted this teaching about women and submission, it never settled well with me, especially during my teens and college years. I wasn’t a follower.
    My attraction to guys shifted towards the highest Type A personalities, the biggest extroverts, the most dominant alpha males in the room. I realized, years later, that I wasn’t actually attracted to these kinds of people. But at the time, I knew deep down that unless a man was more strong-willed, competitive, and commanding than I was—unless he was more of a leader than me—I would never be able to submit to him. I would come to resent, rather than respect, my one-day husband. My very ability to feel attraction to guys became a twisted, distorted version of its true self, because my theology did not fit into reality. My brain tried to make up the difference.
    And for a little while, it worked.
    When I was twelve, I learned a disturbing fact: Many Christians had much more extreme views on the role of women than I did. I wanted to be a director and a leader, but to my astonishment, I discovered that there were people in the world who believed I shouldn’t be those things—simply because I had ovaries.
    There were people who believed women shouldn’t just submit to men in marriage or in spiritual matters, but in all facets of life. They believed women should not be in politics, or run a business, or direct films. Some thought women shouldn’t even go to college!
    Later in my teen years, I met some of these people. I had an argument with one of them. I lost. He knew the Bible better than I did. This theology of uber-submission enraged me. But it also shook me to my core, because the arguments for it relied upon the same Scriptural, theological basis that supported what I already believed: men should lead in marriage and in the Church.
    Were these Christians right? Was it wrong of me to live out my basic nature? Was it wrong to, essentially, exist as myself?
    I had a thousand arguments clenched in my fist like weapons, armed and ready to prove such people wrong, but a sliver of doubt always haunted me, lurking at the back of my mind. That doubt made me second-guess myself. The freedom I felt as a young girl—the carefree way I dreamed of reaching for the stars, the boundless ambition that had been as natural and unthinking as breathing—became stunted, crippled.
    The freedom I felt as a young girl — the carefree way I dreamed of reaching for the stars, the boundless ambition that had been as natural and unthinking as breathing — became stunted, crippled. I wrestled with this issue into my early twenties.
    Until at last, I had a defining moment.
    When I was twenty-three, someone I loved—who had been “submitting” to her husband for decades—experienced betrayal in her marriage. On top of all the horrible pain that comes with betrayal, she was terrified. She had always relied on her husband financially, and wasn’t sure if she could anymore. The ground had been snatched out from under her. As she curled on the floor, weeping, I sat with her in silence, a comforting hand on her shoulder. In that moment, something important shifted within me. Everything in my mind sharpened, as if a turbulent storm had vanished, the clouds had blown hastily away, and the tossing sea had settled into clear, placid glass. No one should have to feel like this. No woman should be reliant on a man for her own stability and sense of security. I decided right then that I didn’t care what the supposedly Good Book had to say about the role of women in society. I drew a line in the sand and said, “This here is my dignity; none may cross it, not even God. I will stand up for myself. I will defend myself. I will not compromise my independence or self-respect.”

  45. This is a continuation of the before. It has been somewhat edited, for clarity. I drew a line in the sand and said, “This here is my dignity; none may cross it, not even God.”
    For me, it felt like an act of self-defense. I built a fortress against the armies that were marching against me. The armies’ generals tried to justify their aggression. “We come in the name of God,” they blabbered. “It is our divine right to subjugate you.”
    I was no longer willing to listen to their nonsense. I didn’t care if they came in the name of God or not. I built up my battlements, raised my drawbridge, lined my walls with archers and said, “No. You will not defeat me.”
    If God actually approved of having my dignity trampled on, screw him.
    And that was how I became a feminist. My decision to become a feminist set me on a bold new path. The moment I elevated the rights and dignity of the individual over the oppressive dictates of theology and tradition, I liberated myself from the shackles of my mind. I was, again, as I had been in early childhood: Free to pursue any dream, without any guilt or second-guessing. As one question led to another, I tumbled down the very “slippery slope” that fundamentalists warn each other about. Rejection of gender roles quickly led to an acceptance of same-sex relationships, and a beat after that, the long-overdue admission that I wasn’t even straight myself. It took only months before I began sliding from moderate conservatism into full-out progressivism, as my curiosity drew me to explore all sorts of ideas I’d always seen as false. I participated in marches. I spoke out on social media. I wrote on my blog. I read Everyday Feminism. I came out as bisexual. I needed feminism. It empowered me to reject harmful, restrictive theology, and to affirm and accept my own sexuality. I needed feminism. It empowered me to reject harmful, restrictive theology, and to affirm and accept my own sexuality.
    But after about a year of being swept up in progressive, feminist culture, I started to feel a disconnect. It wasn’t that I thought feminism was bad or wrong. But I began to suspect that something was missing, or perhaps just slightly off, about the way feminism existed in the United States. Maybe the problem wasn’t feminism itself. Maybe it had something to do with me. All I knew was I couldn’t relate to the culture of pussy hats, the Women’s March, “grab this” written on middle fingers, #BelieveWomen, the creeping influence of Marxist ideology, outright rejection of pro-life women, online vitriol, and the overblown sensitivity to what I saw as minor offenses. I saw all these things and thought, This isn’t me. I just wanted to live my life. I just wanted to direct blockbuster action-adventure movies without feeling like it was a sin. I wanted to date and marry who I was actually attracted to, and not feel obligated to “submit” to them, no matter what their gender was. I wanted to stand on my own two feet, as an individual and an adult, and not be reliant on a man.

  46. Continuation from the above, edited slightly for clarity.

    I wanted to stand on my own two feet, as an individual and an adult, and not be reliant on a man. And I wanted other girls and women to be able to pursue their dreams and passions, and have their independence, too. The word “feminism” seemed to mean more than this, or even something different from this—with a whole host of assumptions and associations that did not reflect my mindset at all. I wasn’t sure anymore if the label was fitting. Was it? Are women oppressed?
    One thing that confused me was how freely feminists threw around the word “oppression”. Technically, by one definition of the term, it was true that women experienced occasional oppression in America—only in the sense that some people might be “cruel” or “unjust” to women.
    oppression: 1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. 2. an act or instance of oppressing or subjecting to cruel or unjust impositions or restraints. (from dictionary.com)
    But the word also had a strong connotation of subjection, overpowering authority, and restraint. Such a term seemed like an overstatement—or at very least, it was overused—in explaining the experience of women in the United States. It didn’t match the reality I saw around me. Perhaps something like oppression existed in certain religious pockets of society, but even that was an oppression of the mind. All it took was a change of thinking for me to be free of that.
    Were women widely oppressed here, once, and not long ago? Most certainly. Were women still oppressed in other parts of the world? Absolutely. But what my parents taught me as a little girl was true. I could drive a car, vote, get an education, enter any career field I wanted, and (arguably) get paid the same as a man. Would there be challenges? Yes. Were there some sexists out there who wanted me to stay at home, to be quiet, to not make any waves? Unfortunately, yes, but they had no power over me.
    The entertainment industry, for example, still had plenty of sexism, both on the screen and behind the scenes. There were investors and producers in Hollywood who believed women like me couldn’t direct action-adventure movies, and it had nothing to do with religious dogma. Pursuing my dreams wouldn’t be easy. But to me, that wasn’t quite the same as saying I was “oppressed”. Perhaps, on the surface, my point of disagreement was just over semantics. But the way feminists commonly talked about oppression, as it there was this heavy weight pressing all women down, was not empowering at all. Instead, it was somewhat demotivating. The way feminists commonly talked about oppression, as it there was this heavy weight pressing all women down, was not empowering at all. Instead, it was somewhat demotivating. It’d be different if such a model of our society were true. But in fact, there was nothing holding me back from pursuing any dream. With enough persistence, skill, and luck, I could make it in the United States. The dissonance I felt with mainstream, American feminism only widened.
    In the summer of 2017, I was disturbed by the way mainstream feminism reacted to a memo by James Damore, the Google employee who was fired for suggesting that the gender parity in tech and leadership was due to women’s preferences and interests, rather than sexist biases. Despite the general scientific validity of his points, feminists and progressives accused Damore of being a dangerous misogynist, guilty of spreading horrible lies and false stereotypes about women. If you actually listen to interviews with the man, you’ll find he is soft-spoken, thoughtful, and anything but sexist. If you actually read his memo, you’ll find that most of the accusations against him were nothing but libel. I saw my own friends say things to the effect of, “Science isn’t really objective, anyway. Who cares what science says?” Is this what it means to be a feminist? Ignoring evidence if it doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative of victimhood and oppression?
    This mindset from my peers bore an unsettling resemblance to the fundamentalism of my youth—the evangelicals who ignored evidence for climate change or Evolution because it didn’t match their worldview. I was disturbed, too, by the way the feminist community ousted Laci Green, an online sex educator who committed the egregious sin of talking to and being friends with anti-feminists. She was willing to talk with people who saw the world differently than she did. And this was… bad, somehow?
    Laci was also vilified for using words in unapproved ways, and for questioning the idea that speech could be equivalent to violence. In May 2017, Laci made several videos responding to online hate and sharing some of her negative experiences in the feminist community. Is this what it means to be a feminist? Residing in an intellectual echo chamber, with little room for self-reflection, criticism, or growth? What, exactly, was happening to feminist culture? Or had it been this way all along? What is feminism?
    This places us at the end of my story, and at my current conundrum.

  47. Continuation from the above, somewhat edited. What does it mean to be a feminist, anyway? And does the term really describe me?
    The popular definition goes something like this:
    feminist: someone who believes in the equality of the sexes.
    Technically, that’s only partially true. Feminism is a specific, historical movement of female empowerment and liberation, not just a set of beliefs — or at least, it should be.
    Let me put it this way. Would you consider yourself an abolitionist if you believed slavery was wrong, but were not actively working to combat slavery in the world today?
    Would you consider yourself a conservationist if you believed we should protect wildlife and the environment, but were not actively doing anything for the cause yourself?
    By the same line of thinking, does it make sense to call yourself a feminist if you believe in the equality of the sexes, but are not actively working to liberate women from oppressive power structures? Feminism in the United States has become a trendy, even profitable subculture of hashtags, celebrity endorsements, and slogans on a multitude of products like T-shirts, pillows, and mugs. A young woman in my country today can go to school to become a doctor or scientist while wearing a “F*ck the patriarchy” hoodie.
    Meanwhile, in many other places of the world:
    Women can be executed for having lesbian sex
    Women can be arrested for dressing the wrong way in public
    Girls can’t go to school, or risk being raped if they do
    Girls fall behind in school because they don’t have practical ways to deal with their monthly periods
    Girls are sold into sexual slavery
    Girls are married off while they’re still children
    Women cannot leave the house without their husband’s permission
    Women risk violence, divorce, or social exclusion if they try to vote
    Women can be gang-raped to pay for a man’s crime
    I could keep going.
    What if American feminists spent less money on “I’m a feminist” throw pillows, and more money on helping vulnerable girls get an education?
    What if American feminists spent less time and energy engaging in Internet arguments or writing think pieces about manspreading, and instead poured support into women’s liberation movements around the globe?
    What if American feminists prioritized solving the major problems facing women and girls in the world today, and after that, addressed truly minor concerns like mansplaining and microaggression?
    Imagine what could be accomplished?
    Of course, you shouldn’t impress yourself onto another culture without their consent. It’s rather colonialist to barge in and say, “Hi, women of foreign culture! We are here to liberate you!” Feminist movements always need to start from within a culture.
    But in the cases where women are indeed oppressed, local feminist movements are already afoot, and the help is wanted, shouldn’t standing in solidarity with those women be a true feminist’s priority?
    Let me be clear: I’m not saying that things are perfect for women and girls in the United States. We still have a lot of work to do.
    But I don’t believe we’ll ever reach a utopic future where things are “perfect” for women and girls. There will always be cases of sexism and rape, just as there will always be cases of murder, violence, and prejudice, so long as humans are humans.
    Anyone who wants to improve society knows that you’re fighting to bring those instances as close to zero as possible. But you’ll burn yourself out if you convince yourself it’s possible to actually reach zero. That isn’t a realistic goal.
    At what point, then, does the label of “feminist” become unnecessary? When has feminism, as a movement, done its job?

  48. While I care deeply about the plight of women and girls throughout the world, actively supporting their cause isn’t my personal passion. Life is short; you have to focus on what you care most about. This is why I’m not sure if I can genuinely call myself a feminist. I go back and forth. Technically speaking, my podcast is feminist in nature, since it has the potential to liberate women from oppression of the mind. And that is something I’m passionate about. I’m still undecided if I officially want that label, however. What “feminism” has come to mean in the United States is not something I particularly identify with. Does American feminism need to be fixed? Or should it be abandoned?
    I believe every culture will, at some point in its history, need a movement like feminism when it’s finally ready to fling off the bonds of patriarchy. But I also believe that every culture will reach a point, after feminism has done its core, transforming work, where the movement becomes redundant, unnecessary, and unhelpful. I wonder if the United States is approaching that time now, or if we’ve already reached it. The number of women I know who say “Yes, I believe in the equality of the sexes, but no, I’m not a feminist” has me wondering if we indeed have crossed that threshold. There are many women in America today who feel strongly connected with the term “feminist”. But there are just as many strong, independent, enlightened women who do not. The truth is, we have reached a point, culturally, where you can say:
    “I want girls and women to succeed, but I am not a feminist.”
    “I want to see instances of rape reduced, and rapists brought to justice, but I am not a feminist.”
    “I would like to see changes in how women are represented in Hollywood, but I am not a feminist.”
    “I support the individuality, dignity, respect, and independence of women, but I am not a feminist.”
    What does this mean? Perhaps it means that America is ready to move not away from feminism, but beyond it. That is an exciting thought to consider.
    Perhaps America is ready to move not away from feminism, but beyond it.
    Emily Hill, writing about feminism more broadly (from the perspective of Britain), would seem to agree, according to her October 2015 article for The Spectator UK.
    A number of celebrities are ditching the term “feminist”, calling it “old-fashioned”, and using the word “humanist” instead. I don’t know what comes after feminism. But whatever lies in our future, I believe it will be beautiful to behold. And I intend to embrace it.

  49. There is a consistent problem that some young marines fresh out of boot camp find. The smaller guys, the bantams, have spent 13 weeks hearing they can take on anything. As Marines, with backup, ok. By themselves, well… maybe not. Sometimes they pick on a guy in a bar, who hands their ass back to them on a platter.

    I never in my life thought women would be this stupid. They have so many other ways to destroy men. But, they have been programed to think they are equal to men. I am actually seeing news items, here and there, about women who decided to physically attack men, like with fists. I’m not talking about self-defence, I mean unprovoked attacks. Most men will not hit women. A young woman in the news recently had her jaw and skull fractured by one punch from an average guy that she had started punching for no reason. If you want to take the same risks as a man, in taking on men, physically, in bad settings, you get the risk equal to what men get. I personally walk away from fights. Piss off a drunk, and you might not see him do the same.

  50. Even Cosmo recognizes toxicity. Check this one out:

    How these women realised they were the toxic partner in their relationship
    “I was controlling and critical – and it all stemmed from my anxious attachment style.”

    by PAISLEY GILMOUR
    APR 23, 2019
    Women who were toxic in relationships
    Healthy relationships are undoubtedly hard to come by, and to keep going. Why? Because our country is so severely lacking in sex and relationships education, that we’re never taught how to conduct healthy relationships and how to know when someone’s behaviour is dangerous or harmful. Here, women who discovered they were the toxic one in a relationship explain what happened, and what they did about it.

    “I was controlling and critical”
    “I realised after the relationship ended. I was Googling ‘signs of emotional abuse’ and while many applied to my ex-partner, just as many applied to my own behaviour in that relationship. Most of them stemmed from my anxious attachment style. I was controlling and critical of my ex-partner. I think reading a lot of books on relationships and attachment styles helps me to notice when I’m anxious, and I can stop myself from acting in an unhealthy way towards my current partner.” [via]

    Emotional abuse signs – what is emotional abuse?

    “I never expressed my feelings”
    “I was very abusive in my first relationship. I had a lot of anger and displaced it. I was immature and not self aware, terrible at communicating and never expressed my feelings. I wasn’t taught how. My partner wasn’t a saint but no one deserves to be abused. I learned from that relationship and started figuring myself out and told myself I would never treat someone like that again. That relationship made me realise I’ve got some major issues I need to resolve before ever getting into another relationship.” [via]

    “My coping mechanisms were abusive”
    “I was in therapy to try and sort myself out before leaving my marriage, and my therapist commented how my ex was abusive, but that also I had developed some coping mechanisms that were abusive in return. It’s sort of a learned behaviour thing, and it’s self-protective, but it’s part of why therapy is important for abusive victims. You have to learn to break the cycle.” [via]

    Emotional abuse – what is emotional abuse?
    “I gaslight him”
    “My ex was extremely insecure and obsessed and overanalysed everything I did. My eventual, learned response was to gaslight him, hide everything and lie to make him relax. I justified it to myself because I wasn’t actually doing anything wrong behind his back, I was very loyal and respectful, he just had no trust at all for me so it was just my only option to keep the peace. We broke up finally and at first it was like cutting an addiction. Once I got over it I’ve never felt so free, light and relieved in my life.” [via]

    “I had temper tantrums and flirted with other people”
    “I didn’t realise my own toxic behaviour until after the relationship ended. My next relationship was an immediate rebound and it didn’t go well. I realised new people weren’t going to forgive my temper tantrums and flirting with other people as easily as my ex had – so that was kind of a wake up call. I learned to appreciate all the things he had done for me and that I had learned so much from him.

    “I wanted to be with someone ‘better'”
    “One friend really called me out on my reasons for leaving him, some of which were shallow. I had legitimate reasons, but I was also comparing my relationship to a lot to other people’s and wanted to be with someone ‘better’. Another friend pointed out I had begun smoking weed too much and that my ex was totally reasonable to be insecure after I had flirted with other people. Basically me never having been totally committed and kind of always window shopping combined with a bit of a temper that rather than fixing…” [via]

    “I was really insecure and didn’t believe he wanted me”
    “I was an absolute bitch in my first long term relationship in my early 20s. I was really insecure and didn’t believe my ex wanted to be with ‘someone like me’. So when he was talking to female friends, or wanted to go out in the evening with some guys, I became a controlling nightmare. I repeatedly texted him asking about where he was and with whom. I would come up with wild scenarios in my jealous mind.

    “It didn’t matter how often he told me he liked the way I looked or complimented me, I never believed him and asked for more and more approval. It was impossible for him to say the right things. After the relationship ended I was angry. Then I was fed up with my self-pity and self-humiliation. I started to dress nicer, I watched what I ate, I became more loving and accepting of my flaws and stopped comparing myself with other women all the time. And most importantly, I stayed single for a year until I was sure that I wouldn’t be a needy nightmare in my next relationship.”

  51. I will respectfully disagree. People aren’t inherently toxic, except for psychopaths. In the early years of the Soviet Union, the state promoted sex, and tried to destroy the family. The state would raise the children, instead. So the state ended up with a few hundred thousand children, to support. The problem is that families, flawed as they are, work. Orphanages don’t. The government has to pay full retail, or more. Families can cut costs. The experiment, a classic Marxist experiment, as Marxists hate families, and anything else that doesn’t feed their ideological view, failed. Badly. In the USA, and Western Europe,
    it seems that some people want to repeat the experiment. Go into the inner city slums, in any big city in the USA. How safe do you feel? It’s like being among the hyenas, in the Lion King. Scar was a socialist. It’s not that there aren’t any nice people there. It is that the hyenas force the nice people to hide. On Friday and Saturday nights, the nice people stay under lock and key, out of fear. Sunday mornings are fascinating, in those inner city areas. Then you see the nice people. Sometimes even going to church. The last two institutions that survive, in the inner city, are package liquor stores, and churches. The socialists in the USA hate churches, and are doing everything in their power to weaken them. What is the Antifa? Sociopaths. The largest single reason for these people is diet. They eat an acidifying diet, which means their bodies are a walking mass of poisons. They make poisonous decisions, do poisonous things, and live poisonous lives. The key point is that all this could be healed, if they sought out a path of healing. Our mass media is very toxic. They hate healthy communities, and healthy people, and do everything they can to toxify them. It’s working. Amish people don’t watch TV. They know it is toxic. Even Mennonites, and some other religious conservatives, don’t watch TV- for the same reason. It has a sort of huckster, state fair attitude about it. And it is one vast stream of lies, and half-lies. I gave up watching mass media, some years ago. My life grew more peaceful. I could relax more. It was like life became very peaceful, and I didn’t need to spend as much time in nature, getting the stress out of my body. I am so very glad to see the media dying. The media are a dying form. There will be few print newspapers, in 20 years. They aren’t doing well in the electronic realm, their advantages are fewer. The big 3 broadcasters are losing market share. Heck, I quit watching them myself, and I know many adults over 40 who have quit. And they grew up with it. I don’t see the kids talking about the big 3 networks, at all. Those networks are dead. What was that guy who replaced Jay Leno. Jimmy Fallon? He decided to make political comments. And reduced his audience by half. His show gets advertising dollars based on eyeballs on the screen. 1/2 the eyeballs doesn’t mean half the income, it means less than half. And he’s in a dying form. Johnny wasn’t that funny, though his guests could be. Jay was funny. I’m glad to see it die, it deserves to. Russians know their mass media lies to them, they accept it. Europeans know the slant of every media outlet. Americans are the only people who assume their media is somehow neutral. But they aren’t. They are very biased, and they don’t understand how biased they are. American mass media is garbage in, garbage out. Disney paid what, $5 billion, for the Star Wars franchise? They made around $1.5 billion on their first SW movie. That last big one, with the purple haired gender studies admiral, did badly. It made some money, from people that would go to any SW movie. The last one, with Han Solo prequel, lost money. How, how, how do you LOSE money on a Star Wars film? Make it PC. I saw 20 minutes of it, free, on an airplane, and didn’t like it. I won’t see another SW movie. Movie theatres are a dying form, too. The explosion of mass media isn’t a bad thing, it means the large, toxic players are dying off, like the dinosaurs they are. There is much more selection.
    Garbage in, garbage out. Watch toxic media, eat toxic food, and notice how toxic one’s life becomes. I have met young people who, in the onslaught of all the PC garbage, and encouragements to divorce, are making their marriages work. Valerie Bertinelli said that all the people predicting she wouldn’t stay married meant she stuck it out. I don’t know where she is now, but she kept her marriage alive. I agree with you, there is toxicity everywhere in the USA. And the mass media is mostly one vast toxic waste dump.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: