# Are women feminizing men?



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

On a Saturday evening in July 1995, a man named Rich Zubaty (author of Surviving the Feminization of America and founder of MENTOR, an organization advocating healthy masculinity) staged an impromptu rally in Harvard Square to protest the swelling tide of anti-male propaganda and the shaming of men in the media. Calling it "Take Back the Penis," Zubaty thought the rally would register only a minor blip on the sociological radar screen. But amid strident female shouts of "Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General," scores of frustrated men began to flock to his banner, all intent on demonstrating their intrinsic belief that "It's O.K. to be a man."

That was almost 10 years ago. Have guys like Zubaty ushered in a decade of change? Not really. The average guy is still P-whipped by our culture, emasculated by the media, forced to cater to women, and pressured to act in a "politically correct" manner. TV, movies and advertisements increasingly portray men as simple-minded buffoons and as pawns to female "strength" and "competence."
*
what women want*

At least books other than Zubaty's have appeared in the meantime -- The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Summers, No More Mr. Nice Guy! by psychologist Dr. Robert Glover and Being a Man in a Woman's World by Dennis Neder -- all arguing that contemporary men are being robbed of their essential masculinity. But unfortunately, far more influential are movies like Mel Gibson's cotton candy pander-fest What Women Want , in which macho ad exec Nick Marshall (Gibson) loses a promotion to a female coworker because he doesn't understand that "It's a woman's world out there," and he only can redeem himself by learning to think like a female.

So the problem remains. As women continue to usurp positions of power and influence, as our culture exponentially coddles and panders to the female gender, as "equal rights" come to mean a kick in the balls, our society has learned to deify women and demonize men. The message is clear: women are good, men are bad. And what men need, the females trumpet, is to be more like women -- to be thoroughly feminized. This is especially true in the dating/mating arena.
*
the sad sitcom story*

Any typical television sitcom tells the sad story. On Everybody Loves Raymond , the perpetually henpecked Ray Barone is expected to endure his wife Debra's *****iness, lack of sexual desire and anti-male barbs as she castigates every aspect of his behavior. When he wants to take off for a couple of hours to play golf, he's "not taking care of his family" (the symbolism of her denying him golf -- his putter and balls -- should be obvious); when he wants to relax in front of the TV after a hard day on the job, he "never talks to her or shares his feelings;" and when he wants sex, he's "constantly mauling her."

http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/142_dating_advice.html


----------



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

As every aspect of Ray's masculine nature is demeaned and belittled, he is portrayed as inferior to Debra, while she is lionized as a superior human being. If he does try to stand up for his male rights, she berates him mercilessly, usually threatening to withhold sex until he backs down and rolls over. No mention is ever made that he works all day to pay for her mortgage, car, clothing, food, insurance, and entertainment, while she spends her afternoons at home trying to learn how to cook meatballs, the most important ingredient of which, according to her mother-in-law Marie, is "love." Notice that no one points out that someone has to sweat and toil to pay for this "love."

In essence, Ray is humiliated and punished because he acts like a man and not like the "perfect" Debra, a woman. His response? He apologizes -- Debra's right, he's wrong. He should be more sensitive, romantic and sharing of his feelings. He might just as well cut off his testicles and hand them over to her on a plate.

*men who act like women*

The problem is that we are turning into a nation of Rays. The standard held up to us is entirely female. This can be easily witnessed in the rise of the "metrosexual," the straight man so feminized that, like a woman, he is obsessed with his appearance, daubs on makeup and opts for cosmetic surgery. Today, men are supposed to have "relationship skills," and they are expected to be capable of achieving "greater intimacy" and to openly express their emotions. They are supposed to be "soul mates" and to "communicate" like girlfriends, not act like testosterone-charged lovers. But at the same time, today's woman has still not shed her typical female hypocrisy; as usual, she still wants it both ways. When there's hard work to be done or bills to be paid, that's when she wants us to act like "real men."

The result? A generation of guys totally bewildered, confused and disoriented. Let's face it: A man's needs are pretty minimal. All he really asks for is regular sex and a cold one. But instead, what he gets are allegations that he's "too aggressive" and trumped-up charges of "sexual harassment" for what is simply a natural appreciation of the opposite sex. If he wants to keep his job or go on a date, he's forced to endure a gut load of female bullying.

*the role of feminism*

It's tempting to blame the whole mess on the so-called "feminism" that has cut the heart out of Western culture. But mainstream "feminism" is a self-serving movement that grants societal license to female greed. The real culprit here is sex. As always, women -- shrewd and manipulating as they are -- know full well that most guys will do just about anything to get laid. So, as females feel their oats with their newfound power, they do what comes naturally to them: They use it for sexual blackmail. If guys want access to our bodies, they say, they're going to have to dance to our feminizing tunes.

It's completely lost on today's woman that females are too emotionally immature, greedy and self-indulgent to do anything but abuse and misuse this power, and they can't see that their short-term selfish thinking really equates to shooting themselves in the foot. The truth is, men are supposed to be men and women are supposed to be women. Mother Nature has made us this way through five million years of evolution. And it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

*time to take it back*

So what can we do about it?

It's time to take our territory back. Take back the penis. This is why Rich Zubaty's rally touched such a raw nerve. Men certainly didn't ask to have their territory redefined. But redefined it has been, right under our noses. Now it's time -- before it's really too late -- to stand up to women, to let them know that we're not going to take it anymore.

As Zubaty writes: "Our job is not to get along with the Goddess. Our job is to f**k the Goddess."

Amen.


----------



## Dead Leaves (Aug 20, 2011)

You. Troublemaker.


----------



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

lol... I think I am feminized. Though I am being enlighten too.


----------



## David777 (Feb 6, 2011)

I've read about this before and I believe it!
In many ways a man is shamed for being a Man.

Example: when I was about eleven years old I was just starting to notice women and of course lusted after them, but all I was hearing from tv, school, internet ect, was that lusting after a woman for her body is WRONG! 

You're suppose to ignore what you naturally want as a guy because if you don't you're somehow being shallow.

And I actually felt this way all the way up to my twenties when I decided to forget all the political correctness BS I had been taught.

And that is when I finally got my first girl friend, and I believe it is because I started to act like a man, instead of what PC taught me to be.


----------



## hmnut (Aug 8, 2011)

As I am pretty sure this topic will be shut down I won't waste too much time commenting on it.

Although I agree tv is pretty skewed, Raymond is a rather bad example as even the writers of the show will admit they took a common sitcom idea "woman is right, man is wrong" and took it almost unhealthy extreme with Debra and Ray to the point of Ray wasn't wrong for what he did but basically just wrong for being alive.

But the idea of "the woman is right and man is wrong" has existed at least since the honeymooners. Why? Because it's the rule of funny.

Honestly because 9 times out of 10 on a tv sitcom the main star (funny person) is a male. Thus his tv wife has to play the straight man. So he does something crazy and then she comes along to clean it up and get the show back to status quo (so they can do it all over again next week).

Even look at shows like I love Lucy, when the woman is the main comedy star the man is the straight man. Lucy does zany stupid things and then Ricky has to clean it up. 

There are only a handful of family dynamic sitcoms that don't follow this formula (of the top of my head Roseanne is the only one I can think of, where she was the zany one but also the one who was usually "in the right" but at the same time she was one of the head writers and was known for firing people who disagreed with her, and she was pretty pro-women are always right... the show was funny thought.)

I think the rest of the topic is just silly, but the stuff about tv is misguided.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

I take it you are licensing this article, fatelogic?


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

When a man sleeps around a lot he is called "cheeky" or " a stud".

When a woman does it she is degraded angrily as a slag.

But no, it's totally a woman's world now and you can totally see that in some random Mel Gibson film which is totally a documentary and really reflective of modern life.

We used to have a guy on here who got very angry at women for no reason and would praise a complete cretin who made Youtube videos where he too got angry at random women and women as a whole. In those videos, the cretin would try and use Sex And The City as an example of how real life is. Same sort of thing as trying to use the Mel Gibson film as if it is somehow a social commentary rather than a quite badly plotted romantic comedy.

It is natural to be mature as a man and desire a woman for who she is. It is beyond stupid to treat her as an object and try and dress that up as some rekindling of some lost masculinity. If a guy is out there treating women as objects then he never had the masculinity he thinks he lost in the first place. 

And the so called "lost masculinity" is always based on a massive attempt to take Darwin out of context. This approach to thinking has been discredited time and time again but it still repeats itself. 

In nature, you get alpha/aggressive/dominant males. And you also get alpha/aggressive/dominant females. But the daft lot who want to reclaim masculinity that hasn't been lost whitewash over the presence of the alpha females in nature and shout: "look, we are animals too and we should behave like animals do. Not the ones I don't want you to see. The ones that support my viewpoint".

There have been huge attacks of prejudice and aggression against the female sexuality by male dominated institutions, religions, organisations and even individual men and the daft lot are upset about some random episode of Raymond. It's like thinking by numbers. 

If you want to reclaim your masculinity....well...women have to get something very big through a relatively small space for the human race to even survive. Might be time to man up and respect her for that.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Looking at your post history, it's obvious you reflect your own desperation, insecurity, and frustration onto women. I would suggest hiring a good therapist to help you fix your outlook on life. Seriously, "manipulative, greedy, emotionally immature, and self-indulgent"? If that is the type of female figure you've been exposed to thus far, your life experience is sadly lacking. I wonder what kind of relationship you have with your mother and if that influences your attitude. Or maybe you just come from that type of background where women are considered good for one thing only. It's pathetic really. :| This attitude belongs in the 1800s, not the 21st century.

As for women 'feminizing' men, I disagree. I think our modern lifestyles and habits have evolved, therefore our gender roles have also adapted to fit the changes. Males no longer need to go out and hunt for food in most countries, and females no longer need to stay home and produce child after child. Both genders have bent the traditional roles due to this and I think it's mostly a good thing.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> When a man sleeps around a lot he is called "cheeky" or " a stud".
> 
> When a woman does it she is degraded angrily as a slag.


You make a good point, but to be honest I often see women degrade other women for sleeping around. I was talking with a female friend about this and she believes women are more likely to use sex to get what they want and don't like it when other women sleep around because it drives down the "market price of sex". I was surprised to hear her admit this, but it makes sense to me.

I also think it has a lot to do with what the public perception is of what a man has to do to get laid vs what a woman has to do. Generally it's harder for a man to find sex, so a man who can have sex with many women is respected for the skill it takes to do this since, men are the ones usually expected to make the first move. Women on the other hand, whether right or wrong, are usually expected to be able to get laid easily, so a woman who sleeps around a lot isn't respected because luring a man into bed is seen as easy.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

That line of logic is pretty idiotic, and holds to a way of life long gone in the western world. How many men nowadays have to use their biological manliness for survival? How often do men have to physically chase down their food, or fight other tribes, or whatever? Our society has changed, and it isn't necessary to be the archetypal caveman man of the past and, in fact, I would argue that they have little place in today's society. While I would say our society is pussifying (fear of offending people, need to be super inclusive to everyone, fear of even mild violence, etc.) it's pretty stupid to cast the blame onto women when the vast majority of leaders and policymakers are men. 

Also, I would to know exactly, how would everyone benefit from a world with more "manly," non empathic, aggressive, men?


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

This thread... 

... this line of "thinking"....


----------



## Elleire (Jul 24, 2011)

Not much to add here that hasn't already been said, so, aside from the obvious issues, I just wanted to point this out:

I do hope you realize how damaging this attitude is, and to the audience you're attempting to rally against the "demonizing" one, no less. To assume there is this "standard maleness" that exists and is being oppressed and subjugated to the "abusive" one perpetrated by women, (and that this is the very thing men are supposed to "take back" for themselves), is to tell the men who never had those inclinations/behaviors/temperament/whatever in the first place, that they are not "real men."

And the pundulum keeps a swingin'.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

****Thread Lock Watch****
Gender wars are not permitted. We'll see where this goes, but I doubt it will last long.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

I disagree with the overall premise of the topic- I don't think that all women, or even "women" as an idea are out to get me.

But what I _do_ agree with, is that men are frequently shamed for being men in tv media. Not just sitcoms- how many tv ads have you seen that end with a woman smirking "silly man, you couldn't do this basic household thing that everyone can do- but I'll cover for you and not say anything". If the roles were reversed, you'd see the blogosphere light up with claims of misogny. That kind of sensitivity needs to be a two way street.


----------



## rumjungle (Feb 13, 2009)

pita said:


> I take it you are licensing this article, fatelogic?





> *Is any content from AskMen available for free?*
> 
> No. In order to reprint our content, publications must license the articles in question.
> 
> ...


Bwahaha askmen. :clap
OP...you used an opinion piece from a magazine that also features such riveting topics as "10 ways to tell your girlfriend she is getting fat". This publication is about as academic and impartial as a Girlfriend or Dolly magazine. I can't take your post seriously especially since you weren't even able to write your own argument yourself.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

yep, we will not rest until you're all wearing tampax and stayfree. and pushing bowling balls out of your bums. when that happens, THEN I will believe you're all "feminized".


----------



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

> I've read about this before and I believe it!
> In many ways a man is shamed for being a Man.
> 
> Example: when I was about eleven years old I was just starting to notice women and of course lusted after them, but all I was hearing from tv, school, internet ect, was that lusting after a woman for her body is WRONG!
> ...


 I am brand new to this stuff so I will keep an open mind and inform myself further.

But yeah, I went through a similar situation as you. Back when I was about your age, the only motivation I had for going to school was because of girls (I was making good grades though). Blame it on hormones or genetics but it seemed to me that I was born with more female-body-attraction genes.

Just the thought of hugging a female or touching one would get me happy and stir up something inside me that would feel sort like what one gets after accomplishing something difficult.

Everything went down hill for me when I got some classes with my sister. I knew she would tell my mom if I was kissing and grabbing females butt (the feeling was mutual with females) and she would make me feel shame and guilty. So I completely shut down my desire for females... I mean, I just wanted my mom to not see me like that because that would break her heart.

But now I see that that was normal for me to feel. Though my mom and sisters where telling me that that was not right.

I had more female interaction in those short lived years than afterwards when I suppressed and went in my shell.

We need to start a revolution lol


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

Taming of the Shrew, written in 1590 or so, is about "weak" men taking back their junk. Or that Eve chick who made a pretty big chump out of Adam. These stories go back a ways, is my point.

The crass depiction of both men and women in TV ads is pretty shameful. I don't know what damage they do, but they are hard to watch some times. There's a current ad where a guy signs up for a new cell phone deal, tells his wife who rips him a new one because he spent to much $, and culminating in her saying she should have married Joe Smith, to which hubby responds with a quivering chin that the deal was free. Everyone looks terrible.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

You were kissing and grabbing girls in class? Anyways, how is what happened to you the fault of women making men more like women? I'd blame Christianity for trying to make people feel ashamed of sexual desires for that. Also, are you actually for objectifying women merely as sexual objects?


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

A gem from the peanut gallery



> Great article, like George Carlin said " the pussification of America", that's what Western men have become in general. Men in Muslim countries laugh at us. They know the reason why women can't be equal to men. Try to find some " Raymod" in Egypt or Iraq? that don't exist. That don't apply to gay men though, because they are like women themselves, they can get laid anytime they want.


----------



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

> The crass depiction of both men and women in TV ads is pretty shameful. I don't know what damage they do, but they are hard to watch some times. There's a current ad where a guy signs up for a new cell phone deal, tells his wife who rips him a new one because he spent to much $, and culminating in her saying she should have married Joe Smith, to which hubby responds with a quivering chin that the deal was free. Everyone looks terrible.


lol I've seen that ad... her watering her precious flowers. Honestly, when I came to America, I did not have this type of problem. Even when I was 6-7 years old, little females where telling me that I was going to be their husband when we grew up.

Then I move here and males are just different. For example, a lot say "I cannot buy that unless the female approves" or "how do I know she is not cheating on me?"... I was hearing this everywhere (and still do) and I guess I just sort of joined the crowd. There is just this, what to call it?, disease going on here.

there needs to be some major changes in society here.


----------



## minimized (Nov 17, 2007)

I just don't buy it. I mean, a sitcom isn't the greatest example to begin with. Are sitcoms directed at women (not sure)? It's tv, in any case. It's never real. It isn't meant to be real. And coming from askmen...

It's kinda weak to assume that because we're forced to give a little to get a little means we've lost our manhood, lost some prime position on the top of society. Which the article does before it embarks on a terribly sexist tirade.

Sounds more like some unlucky loser bitter because he can't get laid... especially when he begins to talk about sexual blackmailing. The only thing that's changed there over the past couple of millennia is that we can no longer take what we want. God forbid, human rights...

I don't know what more to say about it. I don't know where to start, really. It's just so... assuming, sticking to old stereotypes and gender roles dating from the Bible and beyond as a reaction to perceived equality. That men must act a certain way, emotionless, and prime for the plundering, and if they don't there's something wrong with them.

Well, we may always be prime for the plundering. Men aren't changing... just perhaps becoming less relevant. It isn't like we've achieved true equality yet either. Time to adapt to modern society regardless.


----------



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

Here is more interesting reading...










*The War Against Boys*

This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex.

It's a bad time to be a boy in America. The triumphant victory of the U.S. women's soccer team at the World Cup last summer has come to symbolize the spirit of American girls. The shooting at Columbine High last spring might be said to symbolize the spirit of American boys.

That boys are in disrepute is not accidental. For many years women's groups have complained that boys benefit from a school system that favors them and is biased against girls. "Schools shortchange girls," declares the American Association of University Women. Girls are "undergoing a kind of psychological foot-binding," two prominent educational psychologists say. A stream of books and pamphlets cite research showing not only that boys are classroom favorites but also that they are given to schoolyard violence and sexual harassment.

In the view that has prevailed in American education over the past decade, boys are resented, both as the unfairly privileged sex and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls. This perspective is promoted in schools of education, and many a teacher now feels that girls need and deserve special indemnifying consideration. "It is really clear that boys are Number One in this society and in most of the world," says Patricia O'Reilly, a professor of education and the director of the Gender Equity Center, at the University of Cincinnati.

The idea that schools and society grind girls down has given rise to an array of laws and policies intended to curtail the advantage boys have and to redress the harm done to girls. That girls are treated as the second sex in school and consequently suffer, that boys are accorded privileges and consequently benefit-these are things everyone is presumed to know. But they are not true.

The research commonly cited to support claims of male privilege and male sinfulness is riddled with errors. Almost none of it has been published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Some of the data turn out to be mysteriously missing. A review of the facts shows boys, not girls, on the weak side of an education gender gap. The typical boy is a year and a half behind the typical girl in reading and writing; he is less committed to school and less likely to go to college. In 1997 college full-time enrollments were 45 percent male and 55 percent female. The Department of Education predicts that the proportion of boys in college classes will continue to shrink.

Data from the U.S. Department of Education and from several recent university studies show that far from being shy and demoralized, today's girls outshine boys. They get better grades. They have higher educational aspirations. They follow more-rigorous academic programs and participate in advanced-placement classes at higher rates. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, slightly more girls than boys enroll in high-level math and science courses. Girls, allegedly timorous and lacking in confidence, now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and in debating clubs. Only in sports are boys ahead, and women's groups are targeting the sports gap with a vengeance. Girls read more books. They outperform boys on tests for artistic and musical ability. More girls than boys study abroad. More join the Peace Corps. At the same time, more boys than girls are suspended from school. More are held back and more drop out. Boys are three times as likely to receive a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. More boys than girls are involved in crime, alcohol, and drugs. Girls attempt suicide more often than boys, but it is boys who more often succeed. In 1997, a typical year, 4,483 young people aged five to twenty-four committed suicide: 701 females and 3,782 males.

In the technical language of education experts, girls are academically more "engaged." Last year an article in _The CQ Researcher_ about male and female academic achievement described a common parental observation: "Daughters want to please their teachers by spending extra time on projects, doing extra credit, making homework as neat as possible. Sons rush through homework assignments and run outside to play, unconcerned about how the teacher will regard the sloppy work."

School engagement is a critical measure of student success. The U.S. Department of Education gauges student commitment by the following criteria: "How much time do students devote to homework each night?"and "Do students come to class prepared and ready to learn? (Do they bring books and pencils? Have they completed their homework?)"According to surveys of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders, girls consistently do more homework than boys. By the twelfth grade boys are four times as likely as girls not to do homework. Similarly, more boys than girls report that they "usually" or "often" come to school without supplies or without having done their homework.

The performance gap between boys and girls in high school leads directly to the growing gap between male and female admissions to college. The Department of Education reports that in 1996 there were 8.4 million women but only 6.7 million men enrolled in college. It predicts that women will hold on to and increase their lead well into the next decade, and that by 2007 the numbers will be 9.2 million women and 6.9 million men.

*Deconstructing the Test Score*

Feminists cannot deny that girls get better grades, are more engaged academically, and are now the majority sex in higher education. They argue, however, that these advantages are hardly decisive. Boys, they point out, get higher scores than girls on almost every significant standardized test-especially the Scholastic Assessment Test and law school, medical school, and graduate school admissions tests.

In 1996 I wrote an article for _Education Week_ about the many ways in which girl students were moving ahead of boys. Seizing on the test-score data that suggest boys are doing better than girls, David Sadker, a professor of education at American University and a co-author with his wife, Myra, of _Failing at Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls_ (1994), wrote, "If females are soaring in school, as Christina Hoff Sommers writes, then these tests are blind to their flight." On the 1998 SAT boys were thirty-five points (out of 800) ahead of girls in math and seven points ahead in English. These results seem to run counter to all other measurements of achievement in school. In almost all other areas boys lag behind girls. Why do they test better? Is Sadker right in suggesting that this is a manifestation of boys' privileged status?

The answer is no. A careful look at the pool of students who take the SAT and similar tests shows that the girls' lower scores have little or nothing to do with bias or unfairness. Indeed, the scores do not even signify lower achievement by girls. First of all, according to _College Bound Seniors,_ an annual report on standardized-test takers published by the College Board, many more "at risk" girls than "at risk" boys take the SAT-girls from lower-income homes or with parents who never graduated from high school or never attended college. "These characteristics," the report says, "are associated with lower than average SAT scores." Instead of wrongly using SAT scores as evidence of bias against girls, scholars should be concerned about the boys who never show up for the tests they need if they are to move on to higher education.

Another factor skews test results so that they appear to favor boys. Nancy Cole, the president of the Educational Testing Service, calls it the "spread" phenomenon. Scores on almost any intelligence or achievement test are more spread out for boys than for girls-boys include more prodigies and more students of marginal ability. Or, as the political scientist James Q. Wilson once put it, "There are more male geniuses and more male idiots."

Boys also dominate dropout lists, failure lists, and learning-disability lists. Students in these groups rarely take college-admissions tests. On the other hand, the exceptional boys who take school seriously show up in disproportionately high numbers for standardized tests. Gender-equity activists like Sadker ought to apply their logic consistently: if the shortage of girls at the high end of the ability distribution is evidence of unfairness to girls, then the excess of boys at the low end should be deemed evidence of unfairness to boys.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/4659/

*note: the above was written by a female.*


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Yes, being civilized is a disease. :roll Fortunately, you remain uninfected.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

^ I really wish we had that "like" function right now. :lol


----------



## anonymid (Oct 16, 2005)




----------



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

> Yes, being civilized is a disease.  Fortunately, you remain uninfected.


:haha... seriously, why do American men and American females have a hard time finding a partner? Or even if they find one, they divorce prematurely. There is something not right about that. I think when people here (in US) hear couples mention that they have been together for 20 years... they are like "wow, good for you" like if it is something hard to obtain or something. The hardest part is not reaching those years to me.

Also, I see lots of gorgeous females and not ugly guys who are struggling to find a partner. :stu

I don't know, there is this ideology that is not working.


----------



## Cole87 (Aug 15, 2011)

Men feminized themselves in todays world, and then there are some that allow Women to do that to them because they have no guts to say anything about it. A lot of Men don't act like MEN! anymore, just look at reality tv shows and u will see how Men look and dress and act.


----------



## fatelogic (Jun 21, 2011)

> But what I _do_ agree with, is that men are frequently shamed for being men in tv media. Not just sitcoms- how many tv ads have you seen that end with a woman smirking "silly man, you couldn't do this basic household thing that everyone can do- but I'll cover for you and not say anything". If the roles were reversed, you'd see the blogosphere light up with claims of misogny. That kind of sensitivity needs to be a two way street.


 I have a gut feeling that this whole American lets-blame-males movement was started by some angry single lady exercising her freedom of speech and was very outspoken but didn't have a clue about treating a guy... or maybe it was started by some outspoken angry lesbian. Either way, it was started by some female for sure out of anger. Therefore, the end results seems like they are only shooting themselves in the foot.

Also, for some reason, it is wrong for males to watch a female with hungry eyes, but it is not wrong for a female to wear skimpy clothes to try to seduce a male... it is not wrong to tease the dog with a piece of meat but it is wrong when the dog bites the meat... or tries to bite.

Things need to change, if you ask me, that will benefit the whole community.

First hard thing to do is to change these feminized males (starting with me) back to real males though... lol


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

diamondheart89 said:


> Yes, being civilized is a disease. :roll Fortunately, you remain uninfected.


Personal attacks are kind of uncool.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Charizard said:


> Personal attacks are kind of uncool.


So is misogyny.


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

No.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

lonelyjew said:


> You were kissing and grabbing girls in class? Anyways, how is what happened to you the fault of women making men more like women? I'd blame Christianity for trying to make people feel ashamed of sexual desires for that. Also, are you actually for objectifying women merely as sexual objects?


Christianity did not shame people for sexual desire.
It just explains that desire can get people into trouble if it is not put under control. Cue Maury show for an example.

Women were not necessarily objectified like you describe either. Women have free will as do men.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

fatelogic said:


> lol I've seen that ad... her watering her precious flowers. Honestly, when I came to America, I did not have this type of problem. Even when I was 6-7 years old, little females where telling me that I was going to be their husband when we grew up.
> 
> Then I move here and males are just different. For example, a lot say "I cannot buy that unless the female approves" or "how do I know she is not cheating on me?"... I was hearing this everywhere (and still do) and I guess I just sort of joined the crowd. There is just this, what to call it?, disease going on here.
> 
> there needs to be some major changes in society here.


It sounds like bad relationship dynamics - not all couples are like this. 
That purchase thing is almost a consideration - if we had a joint account and my wife (this is a supposition!) purchased something and then I wanted to make that big purchase - um, a check could bounce. At $30 a pop these days, who can afford that?

The cheating thing? -> that is a relationship problem called TRUST. Even if there is a cheating party, that is on the person cheating.

I think some of us need to check our thinking. Something is awry.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Christianity did not shame people for sexual desire.
> It just explains that desire can get people into trouble if it is not put under control. Cue Maury show for an example.
> 
> Women were not necessarily objectified like you describe either. Women have free will as do men.


But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.- Matthew 5:28

According to the bible simply looking at someone with lustful thoughts is wrong.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

The Silent 1 said:


> But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.- Matthew 5:28
> 
> According to the bible simply looking at someone with lustful thoughts is wrong.


It is trying to get something you can't have. You don't even know if she is married! If the man is married and he does that, then YEAH, that is adultery.
That isn't shame - that is trying to keep a relationship together and trying to keep a man focused on staying on the right path in life. Affairs take two to tango.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

diamondheart89 said:


> So is misogyny.


Of which there has been extremely little in this thread, compared to how this usually goes.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> It is trying to get something you can't have. You don't even know if she is married! If the man is married and he does that, then YEAH, that is adultery.
> That isn't shame - that is trying to keep a relationship together and trying to keep a man focused on staying on the right path in life. Affairs take two to tango.


it never says anything about trying to get something you can't have, but simply thinking lustfully about someone is considered adultery. Have you ever watched a movie that depicted a beautiful woman who was scantily clad? Did you even for a moment think lustful thoughts? Then according to the bible you have sinned.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

The Silent 1 said:


> it never says anything about trying to get something you can't have, but simply thinking lustfully about someone is considered adultery. Have you ever watched a movie that depicted a beautiful woman who was scantily clad? Did you even for a moment think lustful thoughts? Then according to the bible you have sinned.


Well, yeah - but women also can think lustfully.
No one is above sin....period. It doesn't have to be sexual in nature.

Lust is like covetousness or greed. The thoughts aren't sin until something inappropriate is done with them. Fantasy would be crossing that line.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Well, yeah - but women also can think lustfully.
> No one is above sin....period. It doesn't have to be sexual in nature.
> 
> Lust is like covetousness or greed. * The thoughts aren't sin until something inappropriate is done with them*. Fantasy would be crossing that line.


The verse clearly stated that simply by thinking lustfully about someone you have already "committed adultery in your heart". According to the bible it is a sin to simply think certain things, regardless of whether or not you act on them. This is basically "thought crime" and it is a way to shame people. And I never said women don't think lustful thoughts, everyone does, I was just using one example.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> Christianity did not shame people for sexual desire.
> It just explains that desire can get people into trouble if it is not put under control. Cue Maury show for an example.
> 
> Women were not necessarily objectified like you describe either. Women have free will as do men.


Let me rephrase that, *Christians *shame the sexual desires of others and force guilt onto those who act on their sexual desires, even if they do so responsibly. The guilt complex people have with their sexuality is forced on them through our society, which received this facet from the influence Christianity has had on it.

Anyways, to the OP, the crap you're posting is using women as scapegoats just as Jews have been used for thousands of years. It is very easy to cast the blame onto a group, and it must feel good to believe that things are bad not because of you, or your problems, but because someone has sabotaged you, and hurt you.

I feel I should add, I have nothing against Christianity. Christ taught great lessons, and if everyone was more Christlike, the world would be a much better place. It's just unfortunate that the people who would say they are the most Christian are very often the least Christlike people out there in that they vehemently hate, judge, and promote violence.


----------



## Ventura (May 5, 2009)

leonardess said:


> yep, we will not rest until you're all wearing tampax and stayfree. and pushing bowling balls out of your bums. when that happens, THEN I will believe you're all "feminized".


:lol

and this thread is illogical !


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

The Silent 1 said:


> The verse clearly stated that simply by thinking lustfully about someone you have already "committed adultery in your heart". According to the bible it is a sin to simply think certain things, regardless of whether or not you act on them. This is basically "thought crime" and it is a way to shame people. And I never said women don't think lustful thoughts, everyone does, I was just using one example.


We take ownership of the thought instead of giving it to God to replce with something better. When we put things into our own hands, the outcome is not always pretty.

Seriously, this thread is close to full lockdown - it has gone off topic. "Feminization" of men does not equal lust.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

fatelogic said:


> Also, for some reason, it is wrong for males to watch a female with hungry eyes, but it is not wrong for a female to wear skimpy clothes to try to seduce a male... it is not wrong to tease the dog with a piece of meat but it is wrong when the dog bites the meat... or tries to bite.


once again, not a christian, but _jesus christ_.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Charizard said:


> Of which there has been extremely little in this thread, compared to how this usually goes.


:blank

Let's have a parade?


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> We take ownership of the thought instead of giving it to God to replce with something better. When we put things into our own hands, the outcome is not always pretty.
> 
> Seriously, this thread is close to full lockdown - it has gone off topic. "Feminization" of men does not equal lust.


I really want to respond to this, but in the interest of getting back on topic I will not. In response to the whole "war on boys" things I definitely think it is true. I have several family members who are in education and they will attest to this. We are going to be in trouble as a country if we don't start doing more to address whats going on with males in our school system.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

55%, or 60% of my class in my medical school are men.


----------



## rumjungle (Feb 13, 2009)

fatelogic said:


> I have a gut feeling that this whole American lets-blame-males movement was started by some angry single lady exercising her freedom of speech and was very outspoken but didn't have a clue about treating a guy... or maybe it was started by some outspoken angry lesbian. Either way, it was started by some female for sure out of anger. Therefore, the end results seems like they are only shooting themselves in the foot.
> 
> Also, for some reason, it is wrong for males to watch a female with hungry eyes, but it is not wrong for a female to wear skimpy clothes to try to seduce a male...it is not wrong to tease the dog with a piece of meat but it is wrong when the dog bites the meat... or tries to bite.
> 
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong but...your entire argument seems to be based on being upset that you can't freely grope women in public. And that's a real tragedy you know. *wipes tear*



fatelogic said:


> it is not wrong to tease the dog with a piece of meat but it is wrong when the dog bites the meat... or tries to bite.


Why does this sound so familiar?

Oh I know! - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uslim-cleric-likens-women-uncovered-meat.html

I really don't want to know what your views on...nevermind.

Serious advice to OP: your views seem pretty skewed and maladaptive, you can only blame others for your problems for so long.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

If men are acting more feminine, women are acting more masculine.

What is feminine and masculine, anyway? They're just words, stereotypes. Who's to say what's feminine and what's masculine?

How about gay guys or lesbians? Are they acting feminized or masculinized?


----------



## Alexa (Jun 10, 2010)

Here's a few gems for the moderator to ponder.



fatelogic said:


> The average guy is still P-whipped by our culture, emasculated by the media, forced to cater to women, and pressured to act in a "politically correct" manner.





fatelogic said:


> So the problem remains. As *women continue to usurp positions of power and influence*, as our culture exponentially coddles and panders to the female gender, as "equal rights" come to mean a kick in the balls, our society has learned to deify women and demonize men.





fatelogic said:


> He should be more sensitive, romantic and sharing of his feelings. He might just as well cut off his testicles and hand them over to her on a plate.





fatelogic said:


> But at the same time, today's woman has still not shed her *typical female hypocrisy*; as usual, she still wants it both ways. When there's hard work to be done or bills to be paid, that's when she wants us to act like "real men."





fatelogic said:


> Let's face it: A man's needs are pretty minimal. All he really asks for is regular sex and a cold one. But instead, what he gets are allegations that he's "too aggressive" and *trumped-up charges of "sexual harassment" for what is simply a natural appreciation of the opposite sex*. If he wants to keep his job or go on a date, he's forced to endure a gut load of female bullying.





fatelogic said:


> But mainstream "feminism" is a self-serving movement that grants societal license to *female greed*.





fatelogic said:


> As always, *women -- shrewd and manipulating as they are* -- know full well that most guys will do just about anything to get laid. So, as females feel their oats with their newfound power, they do what comes naturally to them: They use it for sexual blackmail.





fatelogic said:


> It's completely lost on today's woman that *females are too emotionally immature, greedy and self-indulgent *to do anything but abuse and misuse this power, and they can't see that their short-term selfish thinking really equates to shooting themselves in the foot.





fatelogic said:


> Everything went down hill for me when I got some classes with my sister. I knew she would tell my mom if I was kissing and grabbing females butt (the feeling was mutual with females) and she would make me feel shame and guilty.





fatelogic said:


> I have a gut feeling that this whole American lets-blame-males movement was started by some angry single lady exercising her freedom of speech and was very outspoken but didn't have a clue about treating a guy... or maybe it was started by some outspoken angry lesbian. Either way, it was started by some female for sure out of anger.





fatelogic said:


> Also, for some reason, it is wrong for males to watch a female with hungry eyes, but it is not wrong for a female to wear skimpy clothes to try to seduce a male... it is not wrong to tease the dog with a piece of meat but it is wrong when the dog bites the meat... or tries to bite.


----------



## PLarry (Apr 2, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> We used to have a guy on here who got very angry at women for no reason and would praise a complete cretin who made Youtube videos where he too got angry at random women and women as a whole.


Yeah, I miss that guy.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

Alexa said:


> Here's a few gems for the moderator to ponder.


he's not a misogynist! he just copies and pastes misogynistic articles without attributing them!


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Ahem,

Askmen is actually a very good site. It's funny that it's being called a misogynistic site, when it's actually all about celebrating manhood and learning how to be a good boyfriend.

50% of the articles on askmen are written by women, too.

I agree with the original article presented, but a lot of what the OP has said _outside of the article_ is frankly sickening. Especially the part where he referred to women as "slabs of meat."


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

Feminization, yes. It is incumbent upon every guy to think for himself though.


----------



## Matt J (Oct 19, 2006)

....


----------



## MojoCrunch (Mar 25, 2011)

:ditto :rofl


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm sorry fatelogic if I was a bit harsh on you in your other thread, I had not realised...I have been looking through your post history and I didn't know you had all these problems.

One day you will find someone who sees through your bitterness and you will forget all this stuff you write about the evils of women

- Or mayhaps you could hang around with men more, you could discover something?

*Puts on skirt*...OMG HE'S RIGHT! NNOOOoooo!


----------



## bittertaste (Jul 2, 2011)

Tricksy womenses! They never let Gollum have the precious...

I feel like this is rooted in personal problems, but seriously guy. Lol.

As for the education bit: in my experience in school, boys were both the best and worst students, usually excelling in math and science while girls tended to do better in art, humanities, and English. The best student in my high school was male, but followed closely by several females. The worst student in my high school was male, followed closely by other males. I feel like the pressure comes from outside of school, however. I can't give any evidence that certain areas of school were geared more towards one sex than the other, excepting sports, where the spotlight is always turned on the boys first.

In my personal experience, boys in general were less interested in school than girls were. I suspect it has something to do with not wanting to sit patiently in a classroom learning applications that they feel are totally useless because no one has ever been able to properly explain while they're useful. This is the reason I had problems in school, and that problem rests with the public school system in the US as well as parents being too busy/too uninterested to continue the learning process at home. Plus, kids just want to have fun, and locking them in a building for 8 hours a day is a bad way to try and interest them in learning. I can't say why this seems to affect more boys than girls, but I have a feeling girls are pressured more by their family to do well in school than boys are--or feel obligated to do it to not end up as a housewife.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

VanDamMan said:


> Feminization, yes. It is incumbent upon every guy to think for himself though.


oh please. it's common knowledge we've stolen your tiny brains. think for yourself?? what _are_ you, some kind of _radical_?


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

fatelogic said:


> So yes, *females have it way easier than guys when it comes to SA.* I cannot even tell a female that I have this because she will judge me. Yeah, she may be like "awwww poor thing" if I do (the awww factor depends on how cute I look) but in the end, I am just a wuss in her eyes. *If she wants to be with me is because her last boyfriend name was butch and he use to beat her up*. If she does not want to be with me, she just wants to express her motherly love and that is it. Like to *a wet chihuahua dog* trembling in the streets.
> 
> *Guys have it way harder when it comes to SA*.





fatelogic said:


> I mean, he was crying and I wasn't. (*wet chihuahua dog *VS a none *wet chihuahua dog*... *wet chihuahua dog *wins, always, in front of a female


A wild female appeared.
Wet Chihuaua dog used *shake*
Female is unconscious



fatelogic said:


> *some people think i am gay*


:lol you don't say?



fatelogic said:


> *there are no morally conscious good females around any more. *i mean yeah, my SA stops me from being with one but i've had opportunities to be with some females before, but they are mostly immoral... the moral ones are rare, specially beautiful moral females. Hollywood has brain washed most of the females.
> 
> in my culture, there is a saying that you *get them young. before their little brains get corrupt or brain washed*.


ON HALLE BERRY:


fatelogic said:


> *The older the berry the sweeter the juice*.
> 
> It bothered me when I saw her having sex with billy bob though. And it looked like she was being manhandled good.
> 
> ...


:rofl


----------



## RyanJ (Mar 31, 2009)

What is it with people copy-pasting entire articles? Is it that hard to make your own argument? It's not just any article either. With this particular one it's like plagiarizing miss teen south carolina to get a better grade on your term paper. Not only is it a badly reasoned argument, but it doesn't even include any original content.

Let's take a closer look at some of the related works by those actually involved in creating the quality content in this article. Matthew Fitzgerald is the person who wrote it. He also wrote a book called "Sex-Ploytation: How Women Use Their Bodies To Extort Money From Men." It's really a quality work...the author explains: "The central thesis of the book--that women are nothing but prostitutes preying on the hard work and sexual vulnerability of men--has hit the target dead on. It's all true, every guy knows it--but you're not supposed to say this stuff!" Tell those _tough truths_ Matt!

From this line of thinking we can also learn that professional athletes are extorting money from sports franchise owners in exchange for the use of their bodies. Nothing but prostitutes, those athletes. We could probably say the same for models. Now there are certainly those who may view relationships as a kind of contract. And in a contract we have to deal with the concept of consideration. Basically, it's anything of substance you plan to give the other person in exchange for something you receive. If men want sex and have money and women have sex to give and want money and a long term contract in return, then it's clear that both parties are both giving and getting something from the exchange. In this case it would be a valid contract and certainly nothing close to extortion. I happen to think this is a a pretty terrible way to view relationships, but who am I to judge what the aforementioned athletes and partners want to do with their lives/salaries. ;p

Matt is quite prolific in his bitterness too. Here is a sample of some of his articles from askmen:



> How To Be A Bad Boy: Women claim they want a "nice" guy, but we all know that the right bad boy traits will make you a hit.
> 
> Dealing With Women's Negative Traits: If she's moody, psycho, jealous, a nag, or all of these combined, we'll tell you how to deal.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to link to his crap articles, but feel free to look it up yourself. There are some real *gems* to be found if you are willing to look. So in any case, I have a new career idea for many of the posters in this section: write for askmen.

Oh and as for Rich Zubaty...










...you can check out his AMAZING web site here: happyfool.therudeguy.com.

He pontificates on many interesting subjects. You can learn that men knows things that women do not, that Rich is an expert in Quantum Physics and Philosophy, and how it is possible to live in your car. I am really surprised that more do not know about this modern day genius philosopher.


----------



## WalkingDisaster (Nov 27, 2010)

Can't we just agree that both genders are sometimes treated unfairly in different ways? From what I've seen, being either male or female has it's pros and cons.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

WalkingDisaster said:


> Can't we just agree that both genders are sometimes treated unfairly in different ways? From what I've seen, being either male or female has it's pros and cons.


That's true.

The problem in arguments like this is that it's always a battle between people saying "the unfairness is all-pervasive and makes life an unmitigated suck-fest" and other people implying that the unfairness doesn't exist at all and that they're wrong for bringing it up.

The reality is that there is real unfairness for both genders but in different areas. Which unfairnesses a given person is affected by depends on their circumstances and chosen path in life.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

The Silent 1 said:


> I really want to respond to this, but in the interest of getting back on topic I will not. In response to the whole "war on boys" things I definitely think it is true. I have several family members who are in education and they will attest to this. We are going to be in trouble as a country if we don't start doing more to address whats going on with males in our school system.


I can't disagree with this point. There has been a lot of stuff geared toward girls lately - take your daughters to work, while the sons are left out. Not cool.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I think what's being forgotten here is that the argument isn't that women have it better.

The argument is that men are being feminized, to be more like women. And that, by arguing that men _are_ being feminized, while stating that both genders are equal...well, you're kind of proving the OP's point.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

RyanJ said:


>


Praise be.


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

both sexes are portrayed unfairly in the media. I think we need to learn to tune out the damaging messages that saturate our culture and not be deeply affected by the likes of "everybody loves raymond." that show sucks massive balls, anyway.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

RyanJ said:


>


Ray Bradbury has a doppelganger!


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

BKrakow said:


> both sexes are portrayed unfairly in the media. I think we need to learn to tune out the damaging messages that saturate our culture and not be deeply affected by the likes of "everybody loves raymond." that show *sucks massive balls*, anyway.


If you get a PM from amo about your use of that phrase let me know, I'm working on a theory


----------



## Ventura (May 5, 2009)




----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

[email protected]

is the email address to report breaches of license to this vacuous website.

Just saying.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

^ oh my god that is exactly what I look like around that time of the month.


----------



## Tugwahquah (Apr 13, 2011)

Why was this thread not locked on page 1 ??

This is all nonsense...


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

*It is now.*


----------

