Comments for Feminists Psychoanalyze Themselves Update November 2009 at http://www.rightsidenews.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.rightsidenews.com Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:57:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911297520/culture-wars/feminists-psychoanalyze-themselves-update-november-2009.html#comment-5051 Admittedly, I’m a bit baffled as well by the decree that the behemoth stimulus package will hence be distributed on the basis of gender interest. It seems like a misnomer? Why would you proclaim jobs which fall outside of “shovel ready” construction work as being “female” designated? Seems like BOTH men and women hailing from recessed cerebral/analytical fields would have a vested interest in the creation of opportunities in their respective industries. It’s also ludicrous to think that women aren’t players in the construction world too (perhaps fewer donning the hardhats, but certainly represented in bookkeeping/ sales/ executive roles/ etc). It is really divisive on the part of govt to decree this as a nod to women’s interests – regardless; it will be excellent if male nurses & male professors also benefit from this weird callout for the shifting of funding to supposedly “female” jobs. As far as affirmative action and the like – Agreed, the status quo is obsolete and cringe inducing. Pre- collegiate S.A.T. prep courses are as readily accessible to girls as they are boys and by all means let the better candidate prevail. To the academically disciplined – should go the spoils! Fairness and a healthy regard for competition and work ethic should be the only institutionalized norm. It’s also heartening to see the father’s rights movement materializing. No one with any semblance of ethics would construe the current family law system as being equitable. The gotcha politics of the “broken condom” allow women to totally decimate men’s lives. It’s outrageous for a woman who was lax in her family planning efforts (or worse yet engaging in some type of insecurity fueled entrapment ploy) to be empowered with what amounts to the financial enslavement of her partner. Moreover, since men are mandated to be wholly financially liable in instances of unplanned pregnancies – fathers should have complete parity under the law when it comes to the rearing of their surprise progeny. These unplanned scenarios however, encompass the bottom feeders of society - the vapid and the irresponsible regardless of gender. The other side of this coin is the tragic the break up of legitimate families for whatever reason and of course here too, fathers should always have equitable rights towards rearing their children. Anything else is a travesty in the vein of the David Goldman vs. Brazil story. I’m troubled however, by Ben’s inference that self-determined women somehow serve catalyst for a “nation where men are an underclass and do not produce nearly as much as women.” The prolific rate of male suicides, incarceration, disenfranchisement, along with the litany of other declines afflicting men today that Ben mentioned, should be addressed with urgency, media attention and vast societal outreach. I couldn’t imagine the devastation I would be riddled with if my father, brother or beloved partner were grappling with these types of challenges. I would also think that my “individualism ethos” which comes complete with a relentless work ethic, commitment to financial solvency, meticulous life planning skills and ambitious vocational goals, would prove a valuable supplemental resource for any of the men in my life were they faced with some type of crisis. It’s a false premise that empowering women to choose their own path, comes at a detriment to the well-being of men. It’s also a false premise that women who are professionally sound don’t value deep interpersonal monogamous relationships. My personal relationship with my boyfriend is based on true mutual trust and affinity. My partner knows I’m at his side solely out of pure respect and affection as yes; I do not need his financial support. That’s not to say that we wouldn’t protect and support one another if our working status should change, one of us falls ill, etc. It’s comforting for both of us to be with someone who is resourceful, disciplined and industrious. We just aren’t compelled to seek the sanctioning of our partnership by religion or state. We personally are not religious, but we wholly respect the huge demographic of society that is and that would never feel a union like ours would be acceptable for them. We aren’t poster children for an anti-marriage movement – we simply aspire to live a responsible life on our own terms. The real enemy of state isn’t the professional advancement of women or the cohabitation of law abiding, committed urban intellectuals – The real cancer is those extolling the importance of personal liberty that are sans a sense of personal accountability, along with those who have a strong sense of entitlement, but are intimidated by competition and hard work. Everyone benefits from a society that rewards the responsible and highly capable regardless of gender. - ann nonymous Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:41:39 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911297520/culture-wars/feminists-psychoanalyze-themselves-update-november-2009.html#comment-5005 I kinda agree with ann nonymous's comment although for more paradoxical reasons. I'm a man and know that marriage is certainly not for me. First of all it is now only a commitment from a man to a woman to provide to her and "her" child both in and out of marriage.. Men don't have the right to even have shared custody of their child after divorce. The way I see it is that men are no longer a part of the "family" and are expendable so why even start one much less commit to only one woman. Yes, in fact our single woman birth rate is at 40% but this is normal given the changes women made to family law and marriage..I've seen the graph and it all starts around the same time. Women don't want to "need a man or father" to contribute to raising their children and men have gotten the message quite clear.. Personally I can't wait until the diversion of the stimulus package to women coupled with Affirmative Action, and Title IX-ing men out of the last places they reside in our colleges catches up to us.. A nation where men are an underclass and do not produce nearly as much as women is a good thing. It will bring us to a cultural and social chaos for sure. There will be no structure. Our individualistic, nebulous and subjective relativism will continue to grow. We will continue to stand for and accept everything and in the process stand for nothing in particular. Plato has said in no uncertain terms that tolerance taken to this level is the demise of culture and societal context. Such things have happened before in history.. The American Empire is in a state of decline. Looking at history we've survived a little longer than the rest. To me the picutre is quite clear. Male suicide rates have tripled, we have had a 400% increase in incarceration rates, males now die 7 years earlier than women as opposed to 1-2 years in 1920, male participation in the workforce is on the decline all together, alcoholism, drug use and crime are up and voter participation among males is on the decline along with commitment to women, marriage and a family this is all a normal part of our societal decline towards moral relativism based off the individualistic or individualism ethos ann mentioned in her comment. Over all male productive incentive is on the decline.. With such a large proportion of disenfranchised men both politically, socially and economically speaking I do expect our social issues, mental pathologies, depression along with the "freedom" of individual autonomy and lack of commitment to anything other than the self to continue in a culture where 70% of our GDP is consumer consumption and the product of the day is rightly named "I" this or "I" that... Anyway, Barrack Obama himself along with the supreme federal Council Of Women have shown that women are now a separate political, social and economic class away from men and family as policy and even social culture respond accordingly. These gender identity and class politics will be the wedge that drives us further into demise.I have no doubt that the American people are headed headlong toward the same socialist or communist iinfrastructure that the Soviets were when they established the Genotdel or Women's Section of the Communist party as Barrack Obama did recently with the establishment of a council having the same goals of "equality" or a classless society in mind. Either way, in the coming future men will have little incentive or ties to women and family other than by force of the government. I expect social and political instability to ensue. Either way the sexes will have reached a state of mutual independence or mutual dis-need of eachother.. In short the rise of MRA's and the Men's and Father's Rights Movement is not fluke. Men seek independence from women's dependency. No more provider\dependent both in and out of marriage, no more primary custody of children.. Either way the policies in place are designed to put women and men in competition and produce a female victory by force. The effect is paradoxical and self compounding. Men will have nothing left to lose. Besides if a woman does marry us it will be her liability... Who knows maybe this liberated woman will need a man to stay home and watch her infant or take care of domestic tasks. Either way the tide will turn and men will be freed and independent from women's dependency. Men will infact go our own way as women desire.......... Looking at the data...we already are dropping out... - Ben3432 Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:38:01 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911297520/culture-wars/feminists-psychoanalyze-themselves-update-november-2009.html#comment-5000 I don’t think I’m an anomaly in that I’m truly satisfied with my life – I’m 30 unmarried, love my job, adore my parents, enjoy boundless hobbies and friends. I travel, play guitar, rescue puppies, collect surreal low brow art and I’ve experienced consistent personal growth my entire adulthood. I have fun being childless and selfish and jaunting around with my boyfriend of 6 years (neither of us feel compelled to get married and I’d much rather allocate my resources towards home equity than a poofy white Cinderella dress and 200 plates of filet mignon for our distant cousins and his frat buddies). I believe marriage is a wonderful institution - it’s just not something that I personally want at this point or envision wanting in the foreseeable future. It has nothing to do with monogamy which I whole heartedly believe in and practice. I feel cherished and respected in my relationship and my status quo is perfect from me. I think most unmarried girls in my demographic (at least the sizable group that I personally can speak of) aren’t faking their zest for life and contrary to your conjecture – are anything but sour. I’m surrounded by happy, substantive, light hearted women who hail from lovely families and have migrated to America’s coolest metros in pursuit of creative, carefree autonomy. I love being a woman and having all of the diverse lifestyle/ professional choices that I do. Does this constitute my being a feminist? Would these opportunities be so prevalent had bras of yore not been burned ? If there was stigma associated with not getting married and not wanting to have children – would it decimate the consistent happiness that has accompanied my life choices to this point? Probably. I am certainly no hypocrite and would in turn never stigmatize women who do desire to be home makers or belittle the merit of what they do. I would never stand in judgment of women who have chosen more conventional lives -- nor have I ever heard any of my peers utter anything derogative about traditional nuclear families (outside of just personally wanting something different for themselves). The girls of generation X & Y can dream as big or close to home as they want and feel equally celebrated. Fortunately I haven’t witnessed this negative, complain-y, electively downtrodden feminist prototype that you have elaborated on. I reply merely to interject that your conclusions about career-driven metropolitan women being collectively unhappy is not accurate. Regardless of how polar opposite our points of reference and cultural ideologies may be – I have the utmost respect for everyone’s beliefs even if I may be on a completely different page. We’d all be so much better off losing the disdain that has plagued so much of today’s current cultural/political/sociological discourse. Cheers to respectfully agreeing to disagree. - ann nonymous Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:25:17 +0100