Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Men On Strike

11 posts in this topic

Ah well, I guess I wouldn't expect anyone here to understand it. I've been reading the book and it's not really about "victimhood" as you're alluding too. The author is a libertarian, not a liberal or a social justice warrior who's going to keep prodding on about what can't be done but talking about an overreach of government and why many men are just choosing not to deal with women. It has nothing to do with "oh poor me I need rights," but what to do and how to succeed in a society.

IT's more about how men are reacting to society... heck it was written by a woman.

Anyway, I think this here is falling on deaf ears so I'll just leave it be, but if you decide to come back to it and read it I'll be up for a conversation about it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to post this excerpts from the book:

Quote

So let’s get started on an action plan with tips for fighting back in each of the areas that were discussed earlier in the book. These areas included marriage; paternity rights and forced fatherhood; education; advertising and a culture that portrays men in a negative light; and the decline of male space. The following tips may seem
very general and they are, but the war against men is a very complex topic that requires some guidelines; these should then should be tweaked by individuals reading his book to fit with their own lives and abilities. It is beyond the scope of this book (which is meant to be a call to action rather than a research study) to address every area of discrimination against men, but I have highlighted what I think are the most important points from the book. Let’s start with the most important tip.

Quote

This book is not a marriage or relationship manual, but there are a few things you need to know that I am going to tell you. First off, relationships are now all about emotional interactions and women are said to be better at controlling the emotional narrative. It doesn’t have to be this way. Men are not the emotional wastelands that the media and culture would have you believe. Often they are just too afraid or pragmatic to say anything for fear of upsetting a woman. Also, many men are afraid they will not get laid if their wife or girlfriend is upset. Placating her, however, will probably have the opposite effect. So why put up with emotional abuse and go sexless? You don’t have to be rude, but set boundaries with your wife or girlfriend. The sooner, the better. If she is disrespectful, call her on it, even in front of friends.

It's not a "victimhood book," nothing about it says go out and parade around telling people how much of a victim you are. I guess it's a self-improvement book.

Still the question a lot of women I know seem to have is why there aren't more guys who want to "man up" which is a stupid term. It theorizes of why men withdraw away from society. In a sense, I'm glad I'm not the only male afraid to be around children because of possible accusations for no reason. It's one thing when you actually have control over something and a completely different thing when a false accusation can have control over livelihood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ringer said:

the war against men

Men are:

  • 58% of college/university faculty
  • 60% of school board members
  • 66% of judges
  • 80% of film writers, and 85% of film directors
  • 90% of Congress
  • 96% of Fortune 500 CEOs

If there is truly a war against men in this country, then it is being waged by other men. But it's an idea I have a rather hard time of buying into at all, given the disproportionate influence men still have on education, law, and culture. Given what I've read of that book's summary, while keeping all these stats in mind...it just doesn't seem like there's much of a case to be made for its premise, and it doesn't seem to reflect the lived reality of the men I know IRL either. Sure, male millennials, like female millennials, are delaying marriage and childbearing...but for the men I know it isn't because they feel like marriage and family life are "stacked against them," it's because they are having trouble launching their careers, and haven't met the right person. It has nothing to do with them not wanting to deal with women.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 15, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Steadfast Madcap said:

Men are:

  • 58% of college/university faculty
  • 60% of school board members
  • 66% of judges
  • 80% of film writers, and 85% of film directors
  • 90% of Congress
  • 96% of Fortune 500 CEOs

If there is truly a war against men in this country, then it is being waged by other men. But it's an idea I have a rather hard time of buying into at all, given the disproportionate influence men still have on education, law, and culture. Given what I've read of that book's summary, while keeping all these stats in mind...it just doesn't seem like there's much of a case to be made for its premise, and it doesn't seem to reflect the lived reality of the men I know IRL either. Sure, male millennials, like female millennials, are delaying marriage and childbearing...but for the men I know it isn't because they feel like marriage and family life are "stacked against them," it's because they are having trouble launching their careers, and haven't met the right person. It has nothing to do with them not wanting to deal with women.

The "war against men" are for the "legal system involving men"
All of those you put up except for faculty are positions in which it takes a lot of influence and power just to get to where a very small percentage of the population are even having a job title like that while being successful. It's like looking at the NBA or most major sports and assuming there is no racism against black people since a large percentage of them are millionaires. Statistics themselves are just that, numbers. They might show one thing but CORRELATION does not EQUAL CAUSATION. That's like saying Marijuana gives someone schizophrenia just because a schizophrenic happens to like Marijauna. Just because there are more men at the top doesn't mean the men at the bottom are going to benefit from what they're doing.

The Summary is written by someone on Amazon, it doesn't go into the nature of the book which is an analysis on why a large percentage of men don't speak about why they are giving up on marriage, or about what they go through and why many of them are choosing to just live their lives away from women. 

Still, I doubt the men in your life would ever admit to something like this. The reactions I'm already getting on this forum would provide valid reasoning as to why. This isn't a subject I would discuss with any woman in real life because none of them would care to understand it or even listen. And by even talking about this or complaining it's very easy to get labeled a misogynist or a "whiner." But still there's some truth to them saying they "haven't met the right person." Especially when the wrong person could easily destroy the life they know.

The only reason I brought this up is because this is the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a "war against men" per se, but I do think this book has a target audience that is somewhat understandably receptive to its message. Working class men have had a rough few decades. Well paying working class jobs have disappeared and they've seen themselves become irrelevant to the major players in both political parties.

Getting more speculative, these men probably have trouble attracting marriage partners due to their shoddy financial situations and the stigma attached to being working class. I can see why, from their perspective, they get frustrated when they hear things like "white men are all so privileged." You don't exactly feel privileged when you work for $12.00 an hour when 1-2 generations ago a guy with your skills could have made more than double that, and gotten generous benefits. So, out of frustration for being called privileged and you're financial situation in general, you tend to vilify other groups as actually being the privileged ones and as the ones who are powerful and in a position to persecute you. From their perspective, it's irrelevant if men can or cannot more easily climb the ranks in society. They aren't in a position to do so. In their lived experience, men aren't having an easy time climbing the ranks.

Professional men don't need to worry to the same extent about these issues. They're often more easily able to attract women, they can afford good attorneys for prenups and divorce court to protect their assets, their standing in society is more secure, ect.....And, no, this isn't just a small select few men. Many men in society are in professional fields like management, education, medicine, law, ect....I think that's why there's often a disconnect between how certain groups of men view women and gender relations, in general. For professional men, things really aren't that tough.

To try and sum up, I don't think there is a targeted, concerted effort that's making life tougher for men. I don't think men are so much boycotting marriage as much as economic conditions (as well as a cultural attitude that prizes sexual hedonism for one in his or her 20s) are preventing or delaying marriage for people of both sexes. But, I do think working class men have a tough go of it in society.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wnyYou didn't read the book... Yes there is a "class" portion of it, but even sports millionaires and business men end up paying thousands if not millions in child support. This book is more about gender inequality in the legal system and how men are responding to it, not about class or priviledge. Some of the interviewees in this book are lawyers who make a lot of money and date women younger than them but NEVER MARRY because of all the legal implications. Lawyers aren't cheap and the justice system favors the woman.

This is an analysis of how men RESPOND. It was written by a woman who works as a psychologist and was trying to analyze why the men in society had changed and though much of this book is theory (as statistics don't prove anything) it's a very insightful theory.

I mean, I can't believe how many comments are coming in that have no idea what the book discusses. Seriously. A summary is only meant to get people reading something, yeah I suppose the summary on Amazon wasn't a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ringer,

My comment was about the appeal of a book like that, not a comment about the book itself. You're correct, I haven't read it. The reviews of it don't sound very promising, so I don't intend to. From what I read, the book is based mainly on anecdotal experience. It just doesn't appeal to me. I have my own anecdotal experiences.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find funny is that the original post was asking the ladies of this forum:

"Have any of you read this book?"

Not, "would you like to comment on this book based on the amazon description."

LoL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can fully appreciate the points that (it seems) are being made.

I am terrified by the nature of the family and divorce courts being stacked against men. I also recognize that there are many women who would marry a guy that they weren't attracted to just because he is a "useful idiot"... a means to an end rather than a person... That explains (at least in my mind) why sexless marriage is such a common talking point, and seems to be extremely common. A lot of the women, recognizing that the divorce courts and family courts are biased in their favor, will marry guys they are not attracted to, and take them to the cleaners in divorce court when their level of resentment for the "useful idiot" reaches critical mass... This makes it hard for me to trust that any woman that would marry me would actually be interested in me as a person, and not just as somebody she could exploit.

 

So yes, from what I've read of the description, I can understand that she's describing some of what I feel and believe...

But I will also admit that most men these days aren't "avoiding" women. They are just opting out of marriage, and trying to avoid having the female biased courts decide their fate.

***Edit*** After reading up more about the book, I believe that I will order it. It looks like it touches of a lot of real issues that I find myself dealing with.

This also reminds me of an article I read years ago that rang very true to me. It was entitled "The Ghost Nation"

Quote

There is a generation of men fading from view. This is a global phenomenon but is particularly noticeable (if this is not a contradiction in terms) in the feminist countries.

 Men, who have been pushed to the margins in so many ways have simply elected to disappear. I would imagine that as many as one million men have disappeared ether partially or completely from view in the United Kingdom alone- meaning one in twenty or so of the native born male population. For the most part this disappearance has occurred anyone noticing particularly because it has consisted of a gradual fading form view rather than a dramatic exodus from the mainstream.
I call these men the Ghost Nation and would like to introduce the term to common use.
How does one become a citizen of the ghost nation? It occurs in many ways, very few of them are pleasant.

First of all one may become a member of the ghost nation by virtue of coming from a broken home. They have never seen either parent work and are told daily that men and boys are useless. As a result they never get the habit of work and drift around the edges of crime. Women coming from the same background have an option that is not available to men and this is to become pregnant. This ensures the basics of life and gives purpose.

Young men have no anchor whatever other than the gangs they may belong to and other groups of men they may hate. His is how young men come to religious fundamentalism, political extremism and violence- a life has to be about something and these men’s lives are about nothing at all.

These men are among the most dangerous beings upon the face of the earth. These are the men who make revolutions, a barbarian army within the city walls. They may create or destroy and have no place in the existing order of things and no loyalty to it.

I call these men the ghost army simply because they have no dealings with wider society and are thus invisible to it. They rarely vote and own nothing. At present their anger is purely destructive and tribal in nature- directed against other races and other subcultures such as followers of other music.

Older men are joining the ghost nation more consciously and for other reasons. We (for this is my group) have clearer moral guidelines and have rejected crime and parasitism. Nevertheless we have no place in the existing order of things. Some of us have lost everything through divorce and realised that marrying in the feminist world is simple slavery. We know that no matter how honest we may be the courts and legal system will punish every good deed.

Therefore we work at things that interest us. We become harder to control because we are no longer willing to work inhuman hours for a woman’s approval.

Gradually we extricate ourselves from everything we have been brainwashed to believe is normal. This includes consumer credit, expensive chemical sludge pretending to be food and that strange 19th century invention, the career.

Gradually we eliminate, point by point everything that ties us to the feminist state. This takes both economic and emotional form. Rather than let the media form our opinions for us because we are too tired to do anything else, we form our views actively on the internet.

Gradually, gradually we fade from view. We cannot even talk to people who are still within the system because most of them can only talk about their work.

The third group is those who are nearing retirement. They know they will be rich almost anywhere other than the feminist nations and therefore become free at the moment they are no longer needed by feminist society.

Have you seen yourself in these three groups?

Are you a citizen of the ghost nation?

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 10:45 AM, Steadfast Madcap said:

Men are:

  • 58% of college/university faculty
  • 60% of school board members
  • 66% of judges
  • 80% of film writers, and 85% of film directors
  • 90% of Congress
  • 96% of Fortune 500 CEOs

 

This is neither here nor there. I'm just pointing out that the stats you've listed (if accurate) really only show people's career choices and nothing else. I don't know how you mean them but in case you are implying women badly want those positions and are being "denied" them, this isn't the case, these are just career choices. The same as if you pulled up stats as to how many men were doctors and engineers and scientists and how many women were therapists and nurses. Men and women don't choose their career fields in equal numbers.

I've heard about t his subject a lot. I guess I can understand it. For religious reasons I believe sex outside of marriage is wrong and an entire society of low marriage and huge numbers of children being brought forth without a stable mom/dad situation is harmful to that society. That being said, if I were a person who didn't really want kids I can understand the logic in never "legally" binding myself and my finances to another person who can chance their minds and leave the union and then come after me financially and have courts making me pay for another person for years even though I'm not involved with them. With the high rates of divorce in today's world it does make some sense to never share a residence with someone else or never enter marriage. With the numbers of secularism today, so many believe there is no God, no real moral right or wrong, sex is considered okay between any two or more consenting people, basically don't kill and let everyone just do what they want as long as they don't bother you (that is today's moral compass), with no real example of healthy marriages and seeing divorces everywhere I can see why there'd be no reason to ever let yourself and your career and your financial stability be legally affixed to someone else to where courts could make you give up some of your security and retirement you've built. If one didn't want kids there is some logic in getting yourself fixed to where you could never reproduce and never "live" with anyone you're in a relationship with.

Scripturally speaking it says:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0