Most women still like to fall in love with them; all children want a father no matter how often we try to persuade ourselves otherwise. If we continue to impose low expectations and negative messaging on men and boys, future women won’t have much to choose from.Even the proponents of men speak in terms of what's good for women!
३१ मे, २०१३
"My argument that men should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, men are fundamentally good..."
"... and are sort of pleasant to have around."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
http://onefortheroad.com/
What the fuck?
Capitalism my ass.
"My argument that women should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, women are fundamentally good..."
"... and are sort of pleasant to have around."
FIFY. Not sexist in the least. -CP
CP
My exact thought.
You have faster reflexes.
BTW, how many of those "advanced" degrees are STEM? How many end with the word "Studies?" Hmmm? -CP
It's like a celebrity contemplating a donation to charity, and planning how it will improve their image and saleability. Good outcome, weak motive, but I'll take it over nothing.
I would like some proof that we are fundamentally good. That seems like a stretch.
Daughter of "My wife, I think I'll keep her".
Enlightened self-interest is actually pretty powerful.
If there be angels with wings of brilliant feather, there must be demons, too, with wings of glistening leather.
Then I to hell must consigned be, for sin of exercising agency.
Bastard Candide, "I'd rather work in my garden." -CP
"Why do we need men"
Consider this incredibly stupid question that's never seriously asked: "Why do we need women?"
A difference between men and women is that some women are idiotic enough to ask the first question. Answer: It's men that keep women warm, dry, and fed, regardless of whether they have a husband or a father.
I just googled "for the good of the men in our country" and got zero results. Thanks, women!
Well, it should come as no surprise that a WOMAN who is a "proponent" of men will say that men are good for women; that's her perspective.
I'm probably too old to worry about the collapse of the nuclear family. I won't be likely to live to see the kind of family life my grandchildren have. There was a lot wrong with the "Ozzie and Harriet" family of the '50's. Both my mother and her mother were career women, or tried to be, and were frustrated by obstacles to their aspirations. Expanding opportunities for women seemed like a good idea in the '60's and '70's. Now, looking around at the way things are now, it's not clear that most women are better off. Some are, of course, but the promises of feminism do not seem to have been realized for many.
Geez, the matriarchy sure has some serious potholes.
Oh well, families are fucked, but at least gays can marry.
And #FreeKate!
Enlightened self-interest is actually pretty powerful.
I'm still wondering where the self interest is for a man when it comes to marriage.
My argument that men should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, men are fundamentally good and are sort of pleasant to have around.
In my industry, which requires extreme analytic skills, and does not admit for handwaving with "mitigating factor means just this," when it actually means something else, there are few women.
And there are even fewer ultra successful women in the field. I've had the wonderful experience of having hired, and been in awe with, in love with, one of these women, so don't take it the wrong way. We engineers are starved for women, because very few can and do engineering.
I work in software. It's a lot like math. You can't fake it. If you make a mistake, it won't work. It's a massive export industry, and would be even bigger if countries wouldn't steal our stuff.
Now, maybe stuff like the internet (I've met John Moy, Vint Cerf, and didn't hire Jacob Rekhter, but did hire an awesome female routing expert), are sort of passe, but they are seminal to everything going on here.
So here is what I have to say to ungrateful bitches. Be grateful for what the men did for you. It's not about feelings, its about the physical world, of killing, eating, building stuff that doesn't fall down, etc.
Very few women are wired this way. On the other hand, I heard a great statement about some guys trying to get a heffer out of a barn. Push as they might, they couldn't budge. And a woman comes up with a carrot, and lures it out.
Different talents, both necessary. And once in a while the amazing exception comes along that fills in blind spots, like the woman I had such a crush on did with her routing insights. Saw things like men could not, and filled in tons of blanks. Well, she's a genius in the real sense, so who knows what was really going on.
I'm still wondering where the self interest is for a man when it comes to marriage.
For me it was providing the secure environment for my kids.
Whose kids?They are not your kids they are hers or the states.You just get to pay for them.Even if they are cuckoos.
Men are etc. Some of us are. We know who we are. We're faithful to our wives, we support and train our kids. We show up on time for work. And we ger the goodies.
Why do we have to make blanket statements about people. We lose the ability to feel when we decide one thing is good and it's opposite is necessarily evil.
If my wife is any indicator, apparently it's to do the heavy lifting, keep the kids in the first-percentile intellectually, do the lawn work, and kill spiders.
I would like some proof that we are fundamentally good. That seems like a stretch.
We are all dogs. But, when you consider that women do the choosing, we are what women made us. Hope they like what they made.
. Even the proponents of men speak in terms of what's good for women!
You seem surprised by this.
Then again, I'm surprised people thing nurturing is the natural state of most women over selfish -----.
We all have our blind spots.
keep the kids in the first-percentile intellectually
there are 70 million people in the first percentile.
And would you rather your kids be among the 70 million or the rest of the population?
Calculus by eight, or it's too late.
Proponents of men. What an odd thing. As if we are pro one sex and anti the other.
We should be proponents of the family and the reasons it exists. The truth is simply, that a man and a woman can create another human being by doing a certain act and the person that results from it has a unique relationship to the two parents. These three people form a unique unit. There is a real loss when we try to change how we think about that.
"And would you rather your kids be among the 70 million or the rest of the population?
Calculus by eight, or it's too late. "
It's merely a point that with globalization, intelligence, oddly, has less value.
For instance, Firefighters in San Jose make on Average of $150K, on AVERAGE. And these folks get to retire at 55, with 90% pensions, adjusted for inflation, and with a 3% over inflation adjustment. Plus, a a bonus if the plan performs well.
As I understand it, the primary qualifications are football, an ability to learn ping-pong, and an incredible ego.
In other words, as the global economy scales, inward looking jobs, welfare, etc., becomes more valuable relatively.
(Median income in SJ is 80K, with no retirement benefits).
(Median income in SJ is 80K, with no retirement benefits).
Sorry, these things need to be qualified. Median household income is $80K. If the firefighter has a woman that works, wow.
Loudon Wainwright wrote a song about this.
Men.
When a ship is sinking and they lower the lifeboats
And hand out the life jackets,
The men keep on their coats
The women and the children are the ones
Who must go first
And the men who try to save their skins
Are cowards and are cursed
Every man's a captain, men know how to drown
Man the lifeboats if there's room, otherwise go down
And it's the same when there's a war on:
It's the men who go to fight
Women and children are civilians,
When they're killed it's not right
Men kill men in uniform, it's the way war goes
When they run they're cowards,
When they stay they are heroes
Every man's a general, men go off to war
The battlefields a man's world,
Cannon fodders what they're for
It's the men who have the power,
It's the men who have the might
And the world's a place of horror
Because each man thinks he's right
A man's home is his castle so the family let him in
But what's important in that kingdom
Is the women and the children
A husband and a father, every man's a king
But he's really just a drone,
Gathers no honey, has no sting
Have pity on the general, the king, and the captain
They know they're expendable, after all they're men
And when they're expended, then what?
"My argument that men should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, men are fundamentally good..."
What if they get hungry?
Men are coming round to an old Marine air corps admonition: "If it flies, floats or fucks, rent it."
Dante, my post was (mostly) tongue-in-cheek, but the ability to actually think well is a joy that should not be denigrated, whether or not it turns into a lucrative career.
My six year old daughter this afternoon came up spontaneously with a key insight that Cantor first formalized in his work on set theory. (The additive nature of infinities.) To her it was common sense. I wouldn't have recognized it if I hadn't slogged through Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity.
But first I have to make sure they don't run into traffic, do learn basic social skills, and do accept that they are learning how to be the authors of their own lives.
You ask where's the outrage, I ask where's the respect for CNBC?
Coin.
Flip ya fo real.
This is a link to Benicio.
Families are really Fatherhoods.
The Father-archy is back!
Mark,
There is a guy on this thread asking why guys should get married. I suspect you know the answer to that.
Good winds navigating the future for your daughter, and you and your wife as Captains.
Best,
Dante
There will be no thinking, just emotion, in this comment.
Men are simply wonderful. Some are terrible, of course, but most of them are great. It makes me happy to be at my kids' softball games and look around and see all the guys coaching and umpiring and smoothing out the dirt between games and giving a few words of encouragement to a pitcher who's throwing too high. I was sitting at a stoplight down the street from the school yesterday, the last day of the school year, and watched a grampa using one hand to carry a large awkward teacher gift and the other to hold the hand of a first-grader as they marched down the sidewalk. Today my daughter and I were sitting at the ice cream parlor and I was struck by this massive man, must have been 6'4" and 300 pounds, cradling his baby daughter who looked so tiny in his arm and holding the door for his wife. I love to see men solve problems and fix things and make stuff happen and drive agendas forward. I love the confidence and energy of the men who serve on our school board. And then there's my own husband who is the finest man I've ever known. I love that he would do anything to care for and protect me and our children, and I try to be worthy of that dedication.
I don't know anyone in real life who actually questions the value of men or of fathers. Maybe I'm sheltered.
It makes me happy to be at my kids' softball games and look around and see all the guys coaching and umpiring and smoothing out the dirt between games and giving a few words of encouragement to a pitcher who's throwing too high.
AKA, nurturing. Not what guys are actually good at, but are forced to be good at.
Misplaced Pants.
That was lovely. I don't know anybody who questions the role of fathers either. We must live out of the mainstream.
Or maybe we're right in the mainstream and the father questioners are the oddballs. That would be better.
AKA, nurturing. Not what guys are actually good at, but are forced to be good at.
Very much what fathers are good at. Very much what we need fathers to be good at. Very much what I know about fathers. If people don't know that this IS what fathers are we should be re-teaching it and re-appreciating it.
Very much what fathers are good at. Very much what we need fathers to be good at. Very much what I know about fathers. If people don't know that this IS what fathers are we should be re-teaching it and re-appreciating it.
I suppose it depends on what "nurturing" means. To me, it means enabling the kids to survive in the world.
What Pants said.
Well, while men are overrepresented among criminals and idiots, they are also overrepresented among brilliant scientists, daring leaders, and in all jobs that require calculated risk-taking of high magnitude.
It is not likely the next mass murderer or Bernie Madoff level scamster will be a woman, and it is also not likely that a woman will figure out whether string theory is right, or build the first quantum computer.
Women did not build Love Canal or Treblinka, but they will also not build a colony on Mars or an interstellar spacecraft.
A woman is much less likely to lead the nation into a bloody and futile war, but if the nation ends up in desperate war, willy nilly, a woman will not lead the nation out of it: there have been no female Stalins but also no female Lincolns.
That's just the way it is. The distribution of brains and daring and imagination is wider in men than women: more crazies and morons, more geniuses and heroes.
So the more matriarchal we become, the more safe and homogenous (fewer really deperately poor or brutally oppressed), but also the more static and unimaginative -- the lower our rate of technological progress and the lower the rate of wealth growth.
There are pros and cons to both kinds of imaginable society. A matriarchal society is better if you're worried and want to be safe. A patriarchal society is better if you're confident and want things to advance faster.
However, I suppose the worst of all worlds would be one in which the security of the woman's world can only be built on promises that are premised on the fast movement of the man's world. That seems dangerously close to where we are today. It seems likely we must break out in one direction or the other: either we have to accept security and homogenization, and accept it will be at a lower standard of living than we thought we could all have, or we have to accept that if we want a life significantly better than our parents had, security will be less and there will be more heterogeneity -- more poor, more injustice, more rich, more incredible stories of luck and daring and tragedy and cruelty.
To me it (fatherhood/manliness) means supporting, encouraging, having high expectations, teaching, loving, serving, leading, protecting, laughing, being a good example, in short, being there, sacrificing and giving the best you have in you. This is a description of my grandfather, my father, my kids father and my kids as fathers. Maybe not very showy, but much needed and much appreciated and probably more common than not.
wyo sis:
Sounds like a paradise. As a child, I really enjoyed "Little House on the Prairie" books, and that sounds a lot like Pa.
He had all girls, but I think then, and maybe even now, guys have to survive. It's a different game for daughters of fathers.
My essential view is that guys have to survive. Look at the animal kingdom to understand this. Marriage is one of the things that split us from our biological background. So the father is going to push his male sons to succeed, perhaps more than his daughters.
That's with a good father, BTW. My experience with baseball, etc., was that it was highly competitive with the fathers. For example, I saw one asian kid who had perfect form, the right outfit, etc., but he couldn't hit the ball. The kid literally had tears down his eyes as he struck out, because he had let his father down.
And while that was the visible example of what was going on, underlying it was all fathers helping their sons to compete, and win. Perhaps winning at something they had not, which is somehow even more sad.
Oh sure, please, let the misandry continue. They don't even know they are doing it.
We know the value of fathers but does the intelligentsia?Currently I'd say no but then I thought Dan quayle was correct.
Dante
It might be paradise. I always thought it was the norm.
I get that men aren't perfect. I just don't think they're portrayed well in popular culture. The fathers I describe are normal fathers. Normal men doing what they think is right.
Sure, there are lot's of reasons why fathers do what they do and some aren't very noble, but most do the best they can in whatever situation they find themselves.
I'm not saying all the fathers I know are perfect either, just that they try to do their best and for the most part they succeed. Kids get it that parents aren't perfect, but there's a lot of forgiveness for mistakes when they know they are loved enough to get the best their parents can give them at the time.
This is the way it is in my world for probably 70 percent of the men I know. Maybe it's a red state thing.
You have to show it's good for women because they're a completely thoughtless voting bloc.
These women are verging on brain dead. Talking to each other discussing the utility of men over male designed, invented, and engineered electronics, computers, software, etc. given time to do so through male invention and implementation of other labor saving devices like houses, refrigerators, washers, dish washers, automobiles, trains, planes, supermarkets, etc. Males give them the technical ability to have these arguments about them, and the leisure to have time to do so.
I wonder some days because of this attitude. Obama won reelection in part by mobilizing unmarried women, partially through illogical fear about some sort of patriarchy controlling their lady parts, but also out of greed, with Uncle Sugar and Daddy Obama meeting their every physical need, why make the sacrifices necessary for marriage?
Except that this progressive social model is implicitly based on the taking the work product of males (and childless females) and redistributing it to these modern men-less women, allowing them to have their children, and their genetic legacy without having to provide males with their traditional benefit of securing their own genetic legacies.
Of course the inevitable problem with progressive social engineering is that it doesn't work. It can't work because it inevitably ignores basic human nature, and esp. the reality that greed is one of the most human drives. Young males are increasingly discovering that society is more and more designed by women for women, who are perfectly willing to deprive men of their traditional benefits while appropriating the results of their efforts. So, we have the slacker generation, with so many young adult males dropping out to spend their lives essentially playing with other young adult males, instead of slaving away to build the next Apple or just feed his family.
Ok. There will be a meeting of the Possum Lodge at 8:00 PM.
Meade is bringing the beer.
Even the proponents of men speak in terms of what's good for women!
Since I know you don't have a sarcastic bone in your body, Ann ... way to go, Ann!
Welcome to the dark side.
You're statement speaks to the natural amorality of sexual relations. It's neither right nor wrong or good or bad that women tend to be solipsistic. It just is.
Men are so useful, every woman should own one!
Another aspect of this is that most women alone are much less capable of raising children alone than with a male. They esp. do poorly (statistically) raising boys. Most mothers are just not tough enough to set sufficient limits on adolescent males. So, the young males look elsewhere for their limits, and that means the schools, the police, etc. And most women cannot show males how to act and fit into society. So, this doesn't get done or is done by the more brutal members of society. And, after learning limits from their fathers, males traditionally also learned responsibility and developed drive and ambition from marriage and fatherhood.
So, what happens when males are raised in this matriarchy that fails to recognize the contributions of males to society? They tend to run in juvenile packs terrorizing their neighborhoods, where strength and violence determine status, and the strong prey on the week. No surprise that this is worst in the inner cities where males have been separated most thoroughly from families. The males run in their juvenile packs or gangs, fathering as many children on as many women as the can, then end up in prison and/or dead. And they prey on the most vulnerable in their communities, which often translates into the same women who emasculated them.
But single mothers don't do much better with their daughters, except in many cases to train them to get their own checks by getting pregnant as early as possible. Problem is that without a father (or equivalent) in the household, the only way that they see to relate to males is sexually. One of the most precious things a father can give his daughter is unconditional love, and without that, a lot of women go through life mistaking sex for love, or trading the sex for temporary male attention.
Men are so useful, every woman should own one!
This is a feminist work in progress.
No-fault divorce. It's just one way to make a man a slave. Smart men recognize this. We call these men "men who refuse to man-up," "perpetual adolescents," or "deadbeat dads."
Why do we need men? Well, show me a female Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison. Sheryl Sandberg can lean in all she wants, but what has she ever actually created that would not have existed without her? The Matriarchy hasn't produced great genius and there's no evidence that it can.
You mean women are finally going to save the eunuchs? Declare them an endangered species? Why? To keep around as boy toys? Maybe the developing trend in polygamous marriage will solve the problem, several women can work to keep one man in the comfort he deserves.
One plan might be to put all the men in prison and let the women have jobs as prison guards which is a good Keynesian idea. Women could let the most deserving out occasionally to work as male strippers.
Maybe the plan is to create so many worthless unattached males that the only solution will be to put them in an army which we can then use against the growing army of worthless unattached nihilistic Muslim males.
Does anyone think the current trend is remotely sustainable - to use a new leftist Orwellian word?
""My argument that men should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, men are fundamentally good...""
I'm not sure Megyn Kelly and Greta Van Susteren would agree without more qualifications.
"NEW YORK (AP) — Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly says she's offended by a male colleague's suggestion that children of working mothers don't do as well as those of stay-at-home moms.
A study released this week showing that women are now the primary breadwinners in households with children ignited a sharp debate with two of Fox's most prominent women taking on male colleagues. In an electric segment on Kelly's show Friday, she criticized Fox contributor Erick Erickson for saying that in nature males are dominant.
She said to Erickson, "What makes you dominant and me submissive and who died and made you scientist-in-chief?"
Earlier, Fox's Greta Van Susteren wondered: "Have these men lost their minds?"
The study was done by the Washington, D.C.-based Pew Research Center.
"NEW YORK (AP) — Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly says she's offended by a male colleague's suggestion that children of working mothers don't do as well as those of stay-at-home moms."
http://news.yahoo.com/study-female-breadwinners-stirs-tv-verbal-brawl-205202681.html
looks like the multitudes of future cat ladies are starting to see the writing on the wall.
The first victim of "progress" was a corruption of reason and development of a predisposition to fanaticism. Perhaps Western society is already an inviable construct, whose fruits will wither on the vine with each succeeding generation until we are either extinct or displaced.
That's so sweet of her.
No Dante, not nurturing like women do--watching men coach is a totally different thing. They are teaching the kids how to work and work to get something right, which is crucially important. Outcome matters. Principles matter. Excellence matters. Standards matter. Men are particularly good at teaching this by example and through guidance and that is only one reason why I value them so much.
These chicks are laboring under a complete delusion.
Anything they have, from material goods to their personal freedoms to the fact that they can walk around mainly free of attack, is due to male forbearance.
That could cease tomorrow.
I laugh when I read stuff like this, all these women with their fancy clothes and make-up, clopping around in the stupidest footwear imaginable, completely clueless that the current social structure today may not be in place tomorrow.
Make these vapid urban women writing this crap do without flush toilets and air-conditioning and electricity for a week, and they would find out why they need men.
There are lots of things I am sure they don't wish to experience in the absence of order, also provided by men.
Let the education begin.
No thanks. I'd rather rent than buy.
It might be paradise. I always thought it was the norm.
My Dad was too busy working for me to know him well, so it's not the norm for me.
I have a good friend, and for me he has given me a glimpse into comradary. I never had it growing up for various reasons, but the sense of protecting one another seems like a very good thing. It will always be out of reach for me in the group sense.
Anyway, I do not mean to denigrate fathers in any way. However, I think a primary value of men is to help their kids to survive in an oft-times brutal world. And I'm not only talking about knives and guns. I'm talking about developing an identity, that protects people against the many mean spirited people of the world. And to not be cowed by the screeching hyenas of the left, whose purpose seems to be to subjugate people into accepting a specified POV.
Professor, I lurk much & comment little- and I am probably logged on to your site as my dead wife, Miss Emily.
Us men & you women need each other. Yeah, we are contrary & stubborn & just plain aggravating. But we compliment each other. It is no more complicated than that.
A woman is much less likely to lead the nation into a bloody and futile war, but if the nation ends up in desperate war, willy nilly, a woman will not lead the nation out of it: there have been no female Stalins but also no female Lincolns.
Not true. Samantha Power and Hillary! got us into Libya, no?
Let's not fool ourselves that having women in power will make the world more peaceful or more equitable. If women were in charge, the world would be even more tribal, and nations would go to war over petty, trivial reasons in complete disregard of national interests, security, resources, etc.
Men and women are different, and complementary.
Women generally have difficulty separating the identity of themselves from their children. They confuse and conflate what is good for their children with what is good for themselves, and they justify their own wants/needs as being what is best for their children.
Women are also more emotionally-motivated, so emotional appeals to the Wonderfulness of Women get absorbed into their worldview without critical examination.
A woman who truly understands her limitations will see that she is complimented by a good man. A good man makes a good women/mother better, just like a good woman makes a good man/father better.
Women nag. This pushes men to work harder/better/smarter.
Men resist/refuse/disregard women's emotional demands. This establishes limits and adds perspective to women's (sometimes outlandish) requirements.
And this won't be popular (and maybe isn't even correct), but I believe that it is men who truly love selflessly. Women stick with a man because she grows dependent on his competency and support, but men truly love women for themselves...
Here is the only evidence I have for it. I'm open to other arguments/examples.
When a husband of a long-time marriage dies, the wife lives on, for years or decades.
When a wife of a long-time marriage dies, the husband tends to die within 6 months.
Maybe that is just due to expected lifespans. I don't think so.
I know a dozen men at retirement age, and their wives are encouraging them to keep working, because they fear insecurity if there are any financial problems after retirement, and because they don't want the man around home, underfoot. The wives have been retired for anywhere from 10-20 years in these cases.
The best-case scenario for most women is that their husband works right up until he drops dead. That gives them the maximum security, and then freedom to enjoy their life without a muddling, meddling man underfoot who no longer contributes anything (read: money) to the household (read: the woman).
This isn't just what I've seen. Here is a starting place for research:
https://www.google.com/search?q=women+hate+retired+husbands&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Cynical? Yes. One of the best things about (most) men is we can be cynical about marriage, women, love, etc, and still love our wives wholeheartedly and embrace marriage anyway.
I found a poll on Misandry that seems to trending 90% in favor of admitting that misandry is a problem.
Dr. Helen is making progress.
Funny that someone could be fired for saying something that 70%, 80%, or 90% of anonymous Internet voters (i.e. what people REALLY think when they are not under threat to be PC) would agree with.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा