The 21st Century Male Role

[betsy]

That's assuming that power is distributed according to ability. That's not always the case, not by a longshot. Also, I have never claimed gender is the sole factor, but it is a factor. You are claiming its not on the radar, which is simply ridiculous.

I said:

"The fact is, that historically, men hold power to a greater extent than women. But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned."

Read the above closely.

It's assuming that the attainment of power is distributed according to the ability to attain power. How elementary can it be?

[Peter F]

Well, from what I gather, Betsy's argument is that us liberal men are fools to give up power to Women. Doing so emasculates us. I have yet to see what she bases that argument on. I give up power to women every chance I get and I'm still getting laid. I don't miss the power either.

I have no idea what she's on about.

[Melanie_]

All quotes courtesy of Betsy.....

From the way things are shaping up now, real fast too....it seems to me what used to be the natural male role is now being decimated.

Betsy, your opening post set this up as a gender based issue, but you keep saying this isn’t about gender. What exactly is the natural male role, and how is it being decimated?

I'm talking about why liberal men are so willing to be emasculated.

As I've said before in a another thread, power was the essential factor, not gender. Men had it, and women were less likely to have the facility or the capability of attaining that power. The feminist movement found a way.

Men have power does not equal ONLY MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal men have power BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. Does not equal ALL MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal NO WOMEN HAVE POWER.

You are arguing that the feminist movement has emasculated men, taking their power away, then you argue that power isn’t based in masculinity. Which is it? If power isn’t inherently masculine (and I will agree with you there), the feminist movement can’t emasculate men by promoting equal power for women.

If that is the case, women will gain power only when and if men let them. And that's where we are now. Liberal men have willingly let themselves be emasculated, for their own liberal reasons. The result, probably unbeknown to them, is the abdication of power.

Bolding is mine. I interpret it to mean that Betsy in fact does think that men are being robbed of their power by women.

This is a really disturbing line of thought. Are you saying that men should be in power, and that if women have any control in their lives it is because their men aren't man enough? I want no part of that world. Here's another thought - maybe power shouldn't be that big a part of a relationship. Two equal partners, choosing freely to be with one another, rather than one being dominant and one submissive.

[betsy]

Well, from what I gather, Betsy's argument is that us liberal men are fools to give up power to Women. Doing so emasculates us. I have yet to see what she bases that argument on. I give up power to women every chance I get and I'm still getting laid. I don't miss the power either.

I have no idea what she's on about.

I gave a few samples what I'm on about...

The world would be in a better shape today, they say, if politics were run by women. And a lot of MPs from the Liberals and NDP agree.

Two women raising children, they say, is much better than having any of you guys doing your share.

I take it some would really prefer that you stay out of the picture when it comes to children....or "family."

You are constantly portrayed as an insensitive oaf, your brains practically resides somewhere below your navel. Now it seems, you are also regarded as an hindrance.

Those who know it all think that there might still be some hope for you....that maybe, you are not all that stupid after all.

Like dogs, you'll just have to go through some obedience training.

I'll provide several interesting articles....

[betsy]

MANLY NO MORE

________________________________________

Posted: November 3, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

"I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. "Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It's outrageous!" The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store and was itching to move on to Home Depot.

Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he'll have a few spoiled, cranky kids in tow and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He'll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe's a "learning experience" for the brats – one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He's not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he's safely androgynous and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.

I've often wondered whether decades of emasculation – legal and cultural – have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho.

"A new study has found a 'substantial' drop in U.S. men's testosterone levels since the 1980s." The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid.

The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since "testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels." The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment.

Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman's propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women's sedentary routines – they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty of plowing).

Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and "bang-bang you're dead" are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like "One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads."

The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as "The Dangerous Book for Boys" proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again – the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun – or so my husband tells me.)

Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out.

Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more likely to divorce (and get custody), never marry or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation.

Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female "pedagogues" have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they'll often insist that they be plied with "Kiddie Cocaine." Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia and death. Writing for the PBS's "Frontline," Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that "despite 60 years of stimulant use with children … some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found." (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?)

When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken "girlie-men," such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon have replaced deep-voiced, macho men. Tom Brokaw, for example. Women say they look for partners who are "sweet and sensitive." If they're having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they're breeding out testosterone.

Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one's essential nature be producing less manly men?

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men?

Just asking ...

Ilana Mercer is the author of "Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture." She is an analyst and blogger-at-large for Free-Market News Network and a media fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an independent, non-profit economic policy think tank. To learn more about her work, and to contribute to Barely A Blog, visit IlanaMercer.com.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=52755

[betsy]

THE SYSTEMATIC EMASCULATION OF MEN

Nancy Levant

April 6, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Like him or not, Carey Roberts doesn’t mince words, opinions, or facts. He’s one of those pesky and abrasive truth tellers that makes one breathe between the teeth or, in other words, makes one think even when cultural pressures demand that you don’t.

Political feminism is a beast. It is a dictatorial movement that demands gender behavior, gender roles, and gender servitude. It is not a movement based upon concern for women, but is wholly dedicated to 1) depopulation indoctrination and demand, and 2) the control of masculinity.

Let us begin by saying that 1) women are beaten and murdered by men in every cultural and in every country in the world. This we know. We also know that women kill women, men, and children in every cultural and country in the world, and that men perpetrate these same crimes upon other males in every culture and country in the world. People are not passive creatures.

We also know that women in other cultures and countries are not treated in the same fashion as they are treated in the United States, but that has far more to do with the fact that American males did, in fact, value their female counterparts, coupled with their cultural norms, Christian traditions, and constitutional laws, in a far more sincere and reasonable manner. In the great scope of world history, American men have fared beautifully in the treatment and respect of women due to the aforementioned reasons. In a global context, American women have had better treatment, rights, and cultural equality than most of the world’s women. Somehow, this fact is persistently ignored by America’s radical feminist fringe.

The fact that American women do have cultural respect, opportunities, and gender equality, is a uniquely and contemporary American tradition, and due largely to the genuine acceptance by American men of their female counterparts. Both genders have a very unique and a very good thing going in the United States – at least we use to. But I am very certain that the emasculation of males in this nation, by the very powerful and very globally funded and backed feminist lobby, has very ulterior motives.

It simply cannot be argued that depopulation is a key aspect of the global government’s mission. In fact, massive global depopulation is mandated by many, many decrees, commissions, think tanks, and movements. Genocide continues, unabated and globally, and century after century. “Disease” has become high science, massively funded, and continues, generation after generation, to be used as a lethal weapon. Many pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous to pregnant females. And new drugs have been engineered to all but eliminate menstrual cycles and to render men infertile. Genetically modified food has also been used to render men infertile. Religious suggestions to be fruitful have also been slated for political extinction, for as we know, too many commoners are problematic for the greed and sustainability of the elite.

Political depopulation strategies have been used to lower populations in resource-rich Third World Countries as defense and take-over policies, and we cannot forget Goals 2000, the 1974 report during the Carter administration, which promised that the U.S. would lower its population by multi-millions by 2050. So please, people, let us not continue to believe that “history” is accidental or by coincidence. History is orchestrated, planned, and funded at the expense of all tax payers who, pathetically and historically, pay for their manipulated demise time and time and time again.

The closing of American military bases, coupled with the homeland exiting of all American military men and women, is by no accident. Our military personnel are United Nations forces. First and foremost, get that through your heads. Secondly, consider that laws and pending legislation have now rendered non-military men, who remain on the homeland, virtually powerless. Their jobs left the homeland, the right to private arms is constantly being challenged and degraded, and any outward signs of aggression are fast becoming criminalized on all levels. Traditional and biological masculinity is rapidly becoming a crime – and not just in the United States of America. Remember that global governance is global law.

But why attempt to change the nature of human males? Let’s think about this. We know that men are more aggressive than females. We know that men are physically more powerful than females. We know that men have traditionally acted in defense of women and children, burg and community, state and nation – and particularly so via the mandates of the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which were written SPECIFICALLY to address homeland security due to violations of law, insurrections, and/or invasions, and specific instructions for MEN on how to defend and protect all of the states in the nation.

Now, if men are culturally emasculated, redefined, and rendered incapable of bearing arms, what happens to the legal defense of this nation – especially given the fact that the American military is no longer the American military or present on the homeland?

If it is illegal for men to act defensively, to bear arms, to get mad, or to have opinions other than those crafted by social engineers, men are then rendered incapable of defensive (and Constitutional) duties and tendencies. See how cleverly this works?

Now, back to the feminist movement – as Carey Roberts has so courageously taught time and time again, the radical feminist movement is a political movement to emasculate men and to brainwash women. Mr. Roberts, you have always been right on the money. Political intent is never by accident – never. And the feminist movement, globally funded and created by the pathologically arrogant greed of dynastic social engineers, is but one effort to render impotent the sovereign United States and its Constitutional traditions. And sadly, terrifyingly, the men in this country have been severely damaged – financially, emotionally, intellectually, and defensively.

And American women? What can one say? Incapable of bearing children, maybe? However, they do have silicon boobs, fake fingernails, fake tans, bleached teeth, anti-depressants, credit cards, monumental debt, abortion rights, and starvation diets. They have daycare centers, Socialist indoctrination schools for their older children, and pre-military physical regimens called competitive/select sports for their children’s after-school care. What more could they want? Better ask the feminist movement. They will tell you exactly what women want.

© 2007 Nancy Levant - All Rights Reserved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy Levant is a renowned writer for Constitutional governance and American culture. She is the author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing).

She is an opponent of deceptive governance and politicians, global governance by deception, political feminism, the public school system, political economics based upon manufactured wars and their corporate benefactors, and the Federal Reserve System. She is also a nationwide and lively radio personality. To book an engagement with Nancy Levant, send an email request to:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy82.htm

[Peter F]

MANLY NO MORE

________________________________________

Yeah? So the author finds me sexually unattractive. So what?

THE SYSTEMATIC EMASCULATION OF MEN

Nancy Levant

Oh-oh. Systemic depopulation...NWO...removal of right to bear arms...so-called men left behind unable to defend themselves or their women after the removal of real men in military to foriegn wars...UN taking over...

So very polynewbish. Its all bunk betsy.

[betsy]

Betsy, your opening post set this up as a gender based issue, but you keep saying this isn’t about gender. What exactly is the natural male role, and how is it being decimated?

I got off on a tangent with Blackdog. You're right, I did open it as a gender issue...and that is really the topic I'm concerned about. The emasculation of the "post-modern" male.

You are arguing that the feminist movement has emasculated men, taking their power away, then you argue that power isn’t based in masculinity. Which is it? If power isn’t inherently masculine (and I will agree with you there), the feminist movement can’t emasculate men by promoting equal power for women.

Nobody is arguing that power is not predominantly based in masculinity. Masculinity and gender are two different concepts.

I'm saying that gender is NOT a factor for the attainment of power. You can be male, female or anything else, and still attain power. That most persons with power are male is not due to their gender. It is due to the qualities they possess....those qualities needed to attain power.

[betsy]

MANLY NO MORE

________________________________________

Yeah? So the author finds me sexually unattractive. So what?

THE SYSTEMATIC EMASCULATION OF MEN

Nancy Levant

Oh-oh. Systemic depopulation...NWO...removal of right to bear arms...so-called men left behind unable to defend themselves or their women after the removal of real men in military to foriegn wars...UN taking over...

So very polynewbish. Its all bunk betsy.

Care to explain to me why it's all "bunk?"

[betsy]

If that is the case, women will gain power only when and if men let them. And that's where we are now. Liberal men have willingly let themselves be emasculated, for their own liberal reasons. The result, probably unbeknown to them, is the abdication of power.

Bolding is mine. I interpret it to mean that Betsy in fact does think that men are being robbed of their power by women.

This is a really disturbing line of thought. Are you saying that men should be in power, and that if women have any control in their lives it is because their men aren't man enough? I want no part of that world. Here's another thought - maybe power shouldn't be that big a part of a relationship. Two equal partners, choosing freely to be with one another, rather than one being dominant and one submissive.

I think you are confused. Blackdog and I were talking about the attainment of power....not human relations.

We're talking about power in a significant sense, not whether we can get along with our husbands.

Some husbands can be domineering....just like some wives can. It is their personal characters that make them that way, not their gender.

Furthermore, you're taking the quote out of context. I reposted it below for your benefit.

The "in that case" refers to "But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned. "

If men do hold power because of gender....well, nobody can change that gender, unless they do it by EMASCULATION! I don't think that gender is the factor involved in power. That's the point.

It is the ability, ie. skill, intelligence, timing, among many others - that constitute the requirements for power.

All these qualities are independent of gender. Are they not? If they are not, then clearly men have them in greater abundance than women. Perhaps these qualities also constitute superiority. We'll leave that up to you.

The fact is, that historically, men hold power to a greater extent than women. But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned.

If that is the case, women will gain power only when and if men let them. And that's where we are now. Liberal men have willingly let themselves be emasculated, for their own liberal reasons. The result, probably unbeknown to them, is the abdication of power.

If those qualities required for power are independent of gender, those in power attain their power without reference to gender. If they are dependent on gender, then men are clearly superior in their abilities vis-a-vis power. You can't have it both ways.

To the extent that men have these qualities in more abundance than women, you might consider it a GENDER BIAS. But there's nothing you can do about that. It's the way it is. If it's a gender bias, it's a gender bias! Just like breasts or penises.

It's the ability of the person that makes power attainable. Not gender.

[kuzadd]

Whhhaaaat? Where on earth did you get that?

<blink>

Ha-ha-ha....I get it....ha-ha-ha...we're not on the same page at all!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Anyway, I'm happy for you and your husband. 20 years is tough to survive in this day and age. Me and my husband had also been together practically the same lenght of time as yours. Both of us believing it is a till-death-do-us-part commitment, no matter what. Cheers!

Your right Betsy, you and I are definitely not on the same page.

As I stated you SEEM to think men, should dominate women, because , as stated, they have a male sex organ and are thereby entitled.(that is your implication)

I'll tell you my hubby chuckled, when, I read to him, what kind of a gal , you thought I must be.

He laughed because, he knows , that is not me at all.

I have been married almost 22 yrs, my husband feels no need to dominate me, or our marriage, he says we are equal partners, it's worked pretty good so far, obviously.

20 plus yrs together is tough in any day and age, not just in this one.

I'll be honest, if anyone even dared claimed my husband was "emasculated" because he views his marriage as a partnership of equals, or claimed he was emasculated because he views me as is equal as opposed to his subordinate.

Well, I pity that fool, if you know what I mean!

This garbage you posted written by Nancy levant????

Is just that, it seems long on rhetoric and short on reality.

It may suit you, but, it is insulting garbage to me.

You seem a nice gal, and I have poked fun at your postings in good humour, I had hoped you would see, how silly this all is, by using humour, unfortunately it didn't work.

Defintely you and I are, not only, not one the same page, we aren't even in the same book!

[Who's Doing What?]

MANLY NO MORE

________________________________________

Posted: November 3, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

"I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. "Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It's outrageous!" The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store and was itching to move on to Home Depot.

Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he'll have a few spoiled, cranky kids in tow and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He'll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe's a "learning experience" for the brats – one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He's not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he's safely androgynous and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.

I've often wondered whether decades of emasculation – legal and cultural – have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=52755

I hate to burst your bubble but these type of guys are as apt to be "conservative" as they are "liberal".

As much you obviously like slamming anyone who has views left of your own, they aren't the only ones this new attitude affects. The fact you are trying to pass this of as some slight to any male who is "Liberal" is a sham and does a disservice to a very credible although disturbing shift in our society.

People were carrying on about commercials so, case in point:

Boston Pizza commercial. With the girl who is "a dangerous flirt". apparently when she walks by men can't function or focus on their tasks. They become complete idiots. In one 30 second commercial about 20 or so men are, for lack of a better term, "insulted" in this manner.

This phenomenon is everywhere. It is womyns liberation in overdrive.

[kuzadd]

Yeah? So the author finds me sexually unattractive. So what?

come on, don't you want all women to think your sexually attractive??

Don't you want to be a real he-man, cave man?!

Hit her over the head, drag her to the cave and ravage her unresponsive, unconscious body, so you can be a REAL man?

lol!!!

sorry peterf, I just gotta have my fun. Isn't that a male fantasy? lol.

[betsy]

THE CASE AGAINST COLLEGES TEACHING DISCRIMiNATION AGAINST MEN

Emasculation of America

This website describes the discrimination against men being taught in higher education. It identifies the male-prejudices, female-biases, and sex-stereotyping students learn in our colleges, and later spread culture-wide in their roles as professionals.

It explains how this information then creates and sustains an unrecognized culture-of-discrimination against men. Finally, the site describes how a tacitly and loosely coordinated minority of activists maneuver and pressure decision-makers and the populations of organizations in education, government, business, and the media to advance their cause and interests.

These topics are pursued in the context of three complaints filed in 2005. The first was against St. Louis Community College (StLCC); the second with, and then against the U.S. Dept. of Education (DOE), Office of Civil Rights; and the last with the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division. The complaints address the denigration of men, elevation of women, and gender-typecasting students learn in certain classes and textbooks at StLCC, as well as the prejudiced views and practices the DOE exhibited in handling the claims against StLCC. They further indicate that males are similarly discriminated against on most American college campuses. Thus if this case is successfully prosecuted it could be precedent-setting throughout education. Using our colleges as a frame of reference, this case also offers insight into how the discrimination is spread within organizations, and how it is ultimately disseminated to the public.

An introduction to the complaints and brief example of the information being taught in our colleges available in the Media Release. Please read the Release before proceeding. Doing so will allow you to begin evaluating the nature and effects of this sort of material for yourself. More extensive excerpts are also reported on the first page of Second StLCC Complaint (see blue lettering).

How do the excerpts from the College’s textbook compare to the major gender-balanced research? In general, such studies consistently find that, in their intimate relationships: (1) the sexes perpetrate equal physical violence and

http://emasculationofamerica.com/

[betsy]

I hate to burst your bubble but these type of guys are as apt to be "conservative" as they are "liberal".

As much you obviously like slamming anyone who has views left of your own, they aren't the only ones this new attitude affects. The fact you are trying to pass this of as some slight to any male who is "Liberal" is a sham and does a disservice to a very credible although disturbing shift in our society.

You're not bursting my bubbles. The only bubbles I can see in this scenario are those floating around the bath water of these gentlelittleliberalmen. Lol.

Kidding aside, it doesn't matter what label you put on these guys. They're being emasculated. That's the point.

In my opinion, if they're allowing themselves to be emasculated, they are in definition, liberal men.

Needless to say, I'm not using the term "liberal" in any complimentary fashion.

[betsy]

The radical feminists are not gunning for EQUAL power.

The latest example would be about this new so-called conclusion to a supposed research study about children raised by two women.

That it had been commissioned by the Liberal government to pave the way for the total acceptance of homosexual lifestyle as a normal lifestyle is no doubt the reason behind it, and it’s not secret that the radical feminist movement had been standing side-by-side along with the gay rights movement.

Leaving out the study about children raised by two men suggest that this was strategically done since there are studies that could easily challenge the no-doubt favorable conclusion of this scenario…

And this was a move to warm the hearts of the radical feminists.

The glaring fact is that there is now a study, commissioned by the Liberal government that purports to conclude favorably on women. But there is none on men.

Would it be a stretch of the imagination that in cases of custody battles between divorcing heterosexual couples, the woman now, has in her arsenal this document to wave before the judges….and the man has none, simply because “there was not enough evidence gathered?” Of course, we know the courts ALWAYS decide on what is in the best interest of the child.

History have always given custody to women in most cases, simply because of what used to be the female’s natural role - mothering. But times have changed. There’s hardly time for women to be mothering children. They are out there, like the men, working for their careers, which it seems to me renders them equal as far as parental responsibility is concerned.

So radical feminists now need to re-establish their edge.

[Drea]

History have always given custody to women in most cases, simply because of what used to be the female’s natural role - mothering. But times have changed. There’s hardly time for women to be mothering children. They are out there, like the men, working for their careers, which it seems to me renders them equal as far as parental responsibility is concerned.

So radical feminists now need to re-establish their edge.

Isn't it great that men can now take on the roll of nuturer if they so choose?

Isn't it great that women can now take on the roll of provider is they so choose?

Isn't it great to have options instead of being pigeonholed into a "role" one is not comfortable with?

[Remiel]

I find it rather insulting that you define manliness as the willingness to die prematurely because you were too stupid to pay attention to a few basic health nutritional facts that are manditory on most packaged food.

[betsy]

Isn't it great that men can now take on the roll of nuturer if they so choose?

Why, didn't they always have that choice?

Isn't it great that women can now take on the roll of provider is they so choose?

No one is saying that having the choice isn't good. But just because you have the choice, doesn't mean that taking that option is good.

Isn't it great to have options instead of being pigeonholed into a "role" one is not comfortable with?

Yes. That's why I'm asking: why are we trying to get men pigeonholed into a "role" that radical feminists had defined for them.

As I've always maintained in other previous arguments, I do not deny that feminist movement had done something good for us women. However, the whole thing had taken on an ugly face.

[betsy]

Let me just make this clear to all liberal men. The way this topic had been presented may be too brutal...a punch below the gut.

But believe me, this is how it looks like from my point of view. Your intentions may be of a sincerity in support of women....but realize that most women had been hoodwinked, just like you....to think that this is all for the sake of equality.

If you men do not get your act together, and do something about this....you're gone. Not gone in the sense that you'll be lined up against the wall....but gone, as in obsolete.

And if that's the case, well....you better get used to being slighted by women.

[Drea]

Why, didn't they always have that choice?

No, they have not always had that choice -- men who wanted to be nurturers were considered "girlish" or "feminine". Today a man can be nurturing if he so desires and will not be labelled by his peers as a "girly-man".

No one is saying that having the choice isn't good. But just because you have the choice, doesn't mean that taking that option is good.

Of course taking the option THAT YOU WANT is good. If you want to stay at home and raise children (man or woman) great! The key word is "want".

Yes. That's why I'm asking: why are we trying to get men pigeonholed into a "role" that radical feminists had defined for them.

Men and women WERE pigeonholed into specific gender roles with specific duties for each. Today we (men AND women) have choices.

Radical gay men hate women -- so what. Radical gay women hate men -- so what. There are always radicals. Somewhere some man is saying that women should be barefoot and pregnant. Somewhere some woman is saying that we should just use men as sperm donors. These people do not represent the majority at all.

I am not sure, Betsy, what "role" men are being "pushed into" by radical feminists? Are they being forced to take on "feminine" work? Like doing the dishes? Laundry? Caring for children? Hugging a friend when they're down? Listening?

All these "chores" are part of being a human being. My son is learning to do his own laundry and does the dishes every night after dinner. Am I "feminizing" him? No, I am teaching him how to just plain live.

As I've always maintained in other previous arguments, I do not deny that feminist movement had done something good for us women. However, the whole thing had taken on an ugly face.

Yes, there are nutbar feminazis out there, but like I said before, they certainly do not represent the majority of us man-lovin' women.

[betsy]

Yes, there are nutbar feminazis out there, but like I said before, they certainly do not represent the majority of us man-lovin' women.

I do understand what you're trying to say, Drea....but the issue is a whole lot bigger than being called a "girly-man" should the man wishes to look after his child, or doing dishes and laundry.

Our whole society is shifting and re-shaping. Legislations and laws.

"The rad-fems have devised a remarkable plan for family destablization: fabricate a bizarre accusation, get the media to believe it, whip the populace into a frenzy, and then pressure chivalrous legislators to pass laws that do away with fathers." - Carey Roberts

And yes, majority of us women are not nutbar feminazis.....however, it's these nutbars that seem to have the clout and calling the shots.

[betsy]

PBS PROPAGANDA PIECE

December 14, 2005

________________________________________

by Carey Roberts

________________________________________

"I’ve never heard of a Public Broadcasting Service documentary being slammed by two ombudsmen in the space of one week. But that’s exactly what happened to PBS’ ill-fated program, Breaking the Silence.

The program, billed as an exposé of divorce courts, said that custody of abused children is often awarded to the abusing parent. Government reports reveal that mothers are more likely than dads to abuse and neglect their children, and that mothers in fact are awarded child custody about 85% of the time – so the documentary producers did have a point.

But the ombudsmen peered behind the green velvet curtain and said this time around, the Great Wizard was trying to pull a fast one.

First Ken Bode, ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting came out on November 29 with a report that charged the Breaking the Silence claims were “slanted” against fathers, “incendiary,” and plain “wrong.”

That would be bad enough if we were talking about a Leftist love-in like NOW with Bill Moyers. But in this case we’re talking about a factual documentary.

Then three days later Michael Getler, ombudsman at the Public Broadcasting Service, dropped the second bombshell, noting “there was no recognition of opposing views,” and concluded the show was an “advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation.”

But the problem with Breaking the Silence is not just flawed and unethical journalism. Bode’s greater concern was the fact that the program “has been a launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and the law.”

What was Mr. Bode talking about?

Turns out a rogue outfit called the Mother’s Research and Reference Center was in cahoots with PBS insiders and got advance copies of the program.

Then the MRRC organized demonstrations and private screenings of the documentary for state legislators, judges, and local activists. The idea was to convince them to pass laws to make it almost impossible for dads to get even shared custody of their kids after divorce.

At KVPT in Fresno, abuse professionals were made available to speak with distraught viewers. But the counselors probably didn’t have much to say about all those female teachers who have been making headlines for jumping in bed with their male teenage students. Or the mother who chopped off the leg of her 20-month-old son last week.

Remember, the party line says fathers, not mothers, are the child abusers.

And in Alaska, PBS affiliate KAKM, forgetting it was a tax-exempt organization, promised they would provide free publicity for the activists. According to the local organizer, “The local PBS station has said they will help us advertise and promote our event because we will then in turn promote viewing of their screening date on 10/20.”

That tidbit came to light last Tuesday, courtesy of Fox News columnist Wendy McEloy, who invited readers to see the smoking gun for themselves.

But the Mother’s Research and Reference Center didn’t appreciate all the publicity, so within days they yanked the incriminating paragraph. And a few days later, all 17 pages that documented MRRC’s mischief-making around the country evaporated in cyber-space.

Well, not exactly. Because someone beat them to the punch and made a mirror of the original web page.

Sorry girls, you’ve just been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

The rad-fems have devised a remarkable plan for family destablization: fabricate a bizarre accusation, get the media to believe it, whip the populace into a frenzy, and then pressure chivalrous legislators to pass laws that do away with fathers.

In the 1980s, it was the myth of the deadbeat dad who callously abandons his family. Now we have a draconian (and costly) child support system that tosses destitute dads in jail when they fall behind on their payments.

In the 1990s, it was the ersatz epidemic of men who assault and batter their wives. Thanks to that canard, we have the billion-dollar-a-year Violence Against Women Act that makes divorce easy, profitable, and fun.

And now we have a bogus documentary that smears fathers as child abusers, with the aim of keeping dads out of their children’s lives after divorce.

That’s the stuff of old-fashioned, in-your-face, Soviet-style propaganda. That’s what PBS did on October 20.

So next time you want to get good, solid reporting about a controversial topic, you might do better by picking up a copy of the National Enquirer in the check-out line."

Carey Roberts

________________________________________

Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media.

________________________________________

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts...berts121405.htm

[Catchme]

Betsy cannot speak for men, nor can Mrs Levant, or any other woman. Just as a man cannot say women are not discriminated against when quite clearly women are.

They are the only ones that can say whether they are emmasculated or not, and societal evidence of this supposition, currently and historically has to be examined.

My life partner and I are going to celebrate 28 years together this fall. He is 6'7" and most men consider him to be a 'manly man' kinda guy. Definitely nothing effeminate about him and his still bulging muscles from working hard not working out--not that white collar men do not need to work out and should not be considered "effeminate" for doing so-- yet he self identifies as a feminist. He would not have us other than equals, nor would he have his daughters treated like wantwit object in a submissive position. Nor would he want to be responsible for my actions as an individual, he does not live in my skin, I do.

Men who dominate women, have a problem with their own self worth, with control and with perhaps greed. Women who let men dominate them also a self worth problem. That is why women had to fight for the right to be considered HUMAN. Woman who advocate that men should dominate women, have even larger problems with self worth and self identity.

Men, not so long ago, in JudeoChristian history wore; pumps (shoes with cute little heels and sparkly buckles), their faces powdered, white poofy wigs with fashioned curls and ribbons, they wore beauty patches, silk stockings, embellished the structure of the calves of their legs, yards of the finest lace at collars and cuffs, and tight short pants legged pants. And they held the power of the world. Just as they today.

[Drea]

Ah yes, now I understand where you are coming from Betsy. It's not gender roles you have an issue with -- its our courts and their treatment of men as husbands and fathers...

I too agree that divorce and custody laws are biased toward women. Someone in my own family is struggling with this right now and it ain't pretty.

The courts ARE biased toward women -- but what can people (regular people like you and me) do?

I am willing to stand up in court for my brother but what good will it do? I biased already as he is my kin -- so the judge is unlikely to take my opinion as fact.

His ex-bitch accused him of child abuse and now has custody of the child. Never mind that he didn't do it, never mind that her two older children were taken away (not his kids) because she abused them...never mind that she dated (RCMP are aware of this I saw the transcripts) a convicted pedophile and even left the child with him while she worked!

Sheesh and I wasn't even gonna spill it when I first started this post...