Welmer

Judge Joe Brown happened to be on in the background today while I was cleaning up in the kitchen, and I saw something that I wouldn’t have imagined seeing on TV only a couple years ago.

A young black man and woman were in his courtroom over a disputed loan and wrecked car. The young man had fathered a child with the woman, but was no longer with her. Even so, he was trying to help her out for the benefit of his three-year-old son. He loaned her about $1,500 and had let her use his car. The woman lied about why she needed the money and wrecked the guy’s car with her new boyfriend.

When the story came out, Judge Brown really laid into the girl, telling her that the reason so many young men were behaving poorly was exactly because of ignorant, cheating, lying mothers like her. he admonished the father for choosing this particular woman and having a child with her, but otherwise was totally sympathetic to him. This young woman got a tongue-lashing I have never seen on one of these trashy judge shows.

That women’s bad behavior is even being exposed and denounced on popular TV says quite a bit, because not long ago I saw Geraldo, that short, ugly, stupid and annoying little pimp, arguing that all men who owed child support should be rounded up and thrown in jail. Donahue, for his part, made a living off of being a TV pimp, and never would have suggested that men have any role besides paying women for one service or the other.

But not Judge Joe Brown. He ordered the lying woman to pay her son’s father back every cent she owed and gave her a severe tongue-lashing as well.

I know that these court shows are largely a farce, but I also know that they have a big influence on your average woman’s concept of justice. In our intellectualized bubble, it’s easy to forget that average isn’t all that discerning, and that average derives a great deal of its morality from TV, but it is very true.

That an intelligent black man would be outraged by the behavior of women in his community hardly surprises me — I think a public airing of these feelings is long overdue. For too long, men of the lower socioeconomic classes, black and white, have been the whipping boys of pundits and TV spokesmen. As it becomes increasingly clear that the behavior of women in these cohorts is surpassing men in wicked disregard for society and children, perhaps it is inevitable that people start to lay the blame where it truly belongs.

Carin Rubenstein, author of The Superior Wife Syndrome, argues that in two out of three marriages the wife is “superior” to the husband; that is, she works harder and does more around the house, drives better, is smarter, etc. She suggests that the Homer/Marge Simpson marriage is the norm, and many husbands could never survive without wives doing everything for them.

Mrs. Rubenstein’s solution (poor Mr. Rubenstein), is to force the man to do more of the jobs she wants him to do. As she complains about how he doesn’t handle the endless activities and chores she engages in, it becomes quite clear that Mrs. Rubenstein – and not Mr. Rubenstein – is the one who sees these things as important. He doesn’t do these chores or take on these projects because they were not his idea in the first place. But to Mrs. Rubenstein, and to millions of wives around America, that is not the point. Actually, they are totally missing the point.

Rubenstein’s proposed solution is an expansion of the wife’s authority and dominance to deal with the problems that very dominance has created. This is just another “women take charge” push like all the others we have come to be so familiar with. Is it any wonder that men drop out of family life when women start calling all the shots?

Women are frustrated that men won’t do everything the women want, and all they can see is men being lazy, incompetent and immature. Here is a very illuminating comment on Rubenstein’s website:

Loren

what the heck happened?!

my husband was a bachelor for 7 years. he took care of his household, children, bills, decisions, meals, all by himself and took much pride in it. when he came along in my life i was so impressed with his “take charge” attitude! i was so grateful! finally, a man who didn’t mind being a MAN! we’ve been married two years and everything has stopped. he makes no decisions, asks me if he can have something to eat everytime he goes to the kitchen, no longer takes me out. if we go out i have to plan it and yes, i have to drive! i am so disillusioned right now. this man planned our honeymoon! i didn’t encourage this behavior either! everytime he asks me if he can “eat something” i look at him and say, “i can’t believe you’re asking me this, you’re a grown man.” he still does it! what happened?! women (at least this woman) need their men to be MEN!!!

Someone should tell Loren that this is her fault, since she apparently has deficient logical faculties. If he was independent and in charge before she came along, and then shortly after she came into his life he became defeatist and passive, Loren herself is the obvious reason for the change. But does anyone believe Mrs. Rubenstein would ever hold Loren accountable for this? I hope not, because she is trying to sell books and I seriously doubt any woman would pay for advice that blamed them for anything (it isn’t in their nature to seek anything but validation of their behavior, no matter how bad it may have been).

Another revealing comment that happens to be fairly amusing follows:

Carol Austin

Are you kidding?

Shoes? She is being told to “ask” before she buys a pair of shoes? This is not nagging, this is controlling, and destined to get worse. If he doesn’t trust her to make a good decision about shoes (of any price) than they really need to sit down and have a serious heart to heart about the deeper issues here.

This is in response to another comment, written by a man, that brings up the problems his wife’s expenditures have introduced into the marriage. It is amusing to me, because my ex had enough shoes to fill a hefty bag when we separated. I always did wonder where all that money was going, and when I cleared out and packed up her wardrobe it became pretty obvious. Nevertheless, women like Carol Austin see spending on shoes as a sacred rite. No wonder men give up. When women place the importance of their footwear on such a high priority what can a man do these days?

This women’s empowerment movement is becoming a farce of itself. Women are superior, so they need to be even more superior, and don’t even think about messing with their shoe budget!

Men, if this is what you want to deal with, by all means be a social conservative and continue to believe the outrageous lies about female virtue. However, if you want true happiness and freedom, don’t even try to cooperate. Set your boundaries and don’t budge one inch. Remember: it is a big world out there, and despite the illusion of endless female opportunity, men can have a great deal of autonomy and choice if they only reject dependence.

Lukobe is getting married on Sunday. Lukobe and I have been friends since we were little kids, so I’d appreciate it if readers would give him their best wishes and and keep him in their thoughts and prayers. He’s a good, hard working, responsible guy with a hell of an intellect, and the bride to be is a good woman from the Inland West (much better than a native Seattlite, IMO).

One of the biggest failures of our society is its utter lack of appreciation for the favor we’re all getting when good men marry. Men may gain some in marriage, but their sacrifices are at least as great. It may be a reward in and of itself for men to sacrifice, which is one of the most lofty traits of masculinity, but we would be lower than beasts in the field if we didn’t recognize, reward and defend those who do so.

Sometimes, I think it is truly a miracle that men still take on these responsibilities, despite the thankless treatment they receive. In fact, it reinforces my own belief, because I can’t see it in any context other than martyrdom.

Therefore, I think it’s incumbent on all of us to give thanks for the men who take on this burden, with all its sorrow and joy, and for us to act as witnesses and guardians of the sacred vows. Of course, I leave it to my readers how they honor my friend’s marriage (if they choose to do so), but as for myself, I pledge to stand as a sentinel and witness, and never to waver in my defense of his sacred vows.

I don’t know how many of my readers liked late 80s/early 90s grunge, but I was a pretty big fan as a teen. Soundgarden, Nirvana, Mudhoney and Mother Love Bone were all big sources of local pride for us Seattlites back then. My dad had a ratty apartment above the Off Ramp at the time, and as a boy I’d sometimes stay at his place in the evening and hear the big name bands play underneath me. It didn’t matter too much to me that people were fighting, smoking all sorts of dope and throwing bottles in the alley — it was all fun to watch. Hell, I even got to go in the bar and watch the guys set up the stage a couple of times. It was quite exciting, and even worth having to run from that fat old queen Lee’s German shepherd bitch every time she caught me at the front door.

These guys who played the music are about Novaseeker’s age, give or take a couple years. I was a young teenager at the time, and they were my heroes. That generation of post-boomer men – born in the late 60s – must have felt and expressed the most angst of any generation since that of Hemingway and Fitzgerald. They may not have been all that intellectually articulate as youths, but they sure gave us a dose of their raw emotion. We Seattle children swam in it like fish, buying Sub-Pop LPs on vinyl and picking our favorite bands and musicians. I liked Soundgarden — Chris Cornell was my working-class hero. When we wanted to feel the dirty, rough chords we went with Mudhoney. Nirvana was a bit of a joke at first, being from the redneck logging town of Aberdeen, but they earned their respect in due course and Cobain came to define the cultural phenomenon. This was fitting, perhaps.

Today, I brushed up against a remnant of this in my kids’ preschool parent/teacher meeting. One of the central figures in the culture ended up sitting right next to me. I actually had no idea who he was when I first saw him — I thought he was your typical 40-something Seattle herb. He was dressed and coiffed like a contractor, but didn’t have the requisite physique. He was a somewhat small man with faded jeans, longish hair, a t-shirt and Vans. I hardly gave him a second look. However, when it came time to introduce ourselves, I definitely knew the name. It almost sounded like a joke at first, but there he was: a polite, mild-mannered dad at a parent meeting representing his little girl, who is my daughter’s age. I’m not going to identify the guy, because I wouldn’t want that myself, and it would be pretty low of me to do so, but he’s one of about a dozen major figures in the Seattle music scene from the 80s/90s and everyone reading would recognize his band.

He seemed to be a pretty normal, decent guy with a whole lot of money, and without a trace of the angst that animated grunge music. I think it’s for the best to see a guy who was once part of a scene that glorified waste, death and dissipation to be fostering life, but it’s doubtless been a long road. In fact, it’s been a long road for too many of us, and there are those left behind that we should remember in the coming autumn days of death’s remembrance. What it says to me is that, despite the absence of catastrophic war, disaster or pestilence, we still have reaped a grim harvest over the last couple of decades. To see men in their 40s reborn is an encouraging sign, because in their 20s these guys were masters of futility and doom.

Sometimes I think it is up to us somewhat younger men to interpret what happened in those dark years, but we need the input from those who were at their forefront, even if they didn’t fully understand or articulate what was going on at the time. Essentially, we need to distill their experiences into something powerful and meaningful not only on a spiritual and emotional basis, but on the intellectual plane as well. I know that Justin will have some of his own ideas about the dark message of grunge from that era, but I have come up with a fairly radical hypothesis concerning the spiritual phenomenon that he ought to find pretty interesting, and I’d like to explore it in collaboration with others who are interested in the spiritual bases of these trends.

For now, it would be interesting to see what these artists’ contemporaries have to say about this point in history. Sitting next to this unassuming, youngish former rock star who had a little daughter brought some questions to the fore — especially concerning the survivors of the era he defined. That generation of men that raged against a system stacked against them remains a mystery, but it is a mystery that can be unlocked and understood to a degree with stories and reflection. Just as I looked up to these guys as heroes as an adolescent, I still look to the spirit of that generation, which was thrown on the guns of “progress” and cut down in droves. Young men and their sons have many questions, and we need your experience to answer them. It was a distinct time, and it can’t be understood without your voice.

I have read both Roissy and Whiskey make the point that as society becomes more feminized, credentialism becomes more prevalent. Perhaps credentialism is at its zenith today, pushing the obedient overachievers straight to the top. Many of these obedient, overachieving types are women — in fact, given the gender disparity in college graduation rates, most of them probably are. Additionally, obedience and goal-orientation are often signs of an aching need to “fit in,” that is, to do what one feels is expected by society. There is nothing wrong with such people, of course, because they are a part of a healthy behavioral continuum in human society. However, things are becoming rather imbalanced.

A lot of creative types and leaders are not the most obedient people, nor do they always pursue the goals society expects them to strive for. Many have mediocre credentials from your typical corporate or professional standpoint. However, what they do tend to have is a great deal of experience or native charisma — the kind you can’t measure with diplomas (a lot of them are highly intelligent as well, but that’s another matter).

Some of our greatest generals, such as Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, had rather undistinguished performances at West Point, but went on to become essential to victory. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates finished college, and we all know what they went on to achieve. The examples go on and on, the point being that people can succeed and effect change through unconventional routes. And, given the great achievements of some of these unconventional types, it would be foolish to attempt to shut off all but the conventional paths to success.

Unfortunately, our society is becoming more and more obsessed with standardized credentials, even as there has been a broad devaluation of the credentials themselves. This means that although it no longer means all that much to have a higher degree (due to affirmative action, grade inflation and other factors), the degrees themselves have become more of a necessity for even entry-level jobs that require few skills beyond typing and filing. This is preventing plenty of talented people – mainly young men – from obtaining positions in organizations in which they could potentially contribute a great deal.

For example, the recently departed John Hughes, who directed a number of popular teen movies during the 1980s, got his start as a copywriter after dropping out of the University of Arizona at the age of twenty. After working on some successful ad campaigns, Hughes tried his hand at writing screenplays, eventually succeeding with films such as The Breakfast Club that those of us in my demographic grew up with.

Today, John Hughes likely wouldn’t have gone anywhere. He would have applied for a copywriting job and been passed over, most likely in favor of a young, single urban female with an MA in English. If he had eventually succeeded as a writer, it would have been in spite of the fact that he would have had to take jobs outside of the creative field, and probably later in life. It is doubtful that he would have enjoyed the same degree of success, even in the unlikely event that he did manage to support himself in a creative field.

Of course, there are fields where credentials are important, such as law, medicine and architecture, but even here we have a bit of a structural problem. Getting into these fields requires an initial four-year degree before specialization. Why not allow young people with two-year degrees to apply directly to law school or medical school? The truth is that the extra two years of college are redundant for those who go on to become high-level professionals, and might discourage unconventional types from following through and joining professions in which they could be quite successful. Additionally, most Americans do not obtain four-year degrees, and most that do do not need them.

All we are doing with this overemphasis on credentials is locking the door to talented young people and wasting the energy and money of others who could be gainfully employed or in training a couple years earlier than otherwise. For young men, many of whom are not suited to the culture of the modern educational institution, this is becoming an increasingly onerous burden. It is time to break the monopoly on young lives held by higher education, and cut it down to the proper size. We should give the young some more freedom to define themselves, and clear the path to a career and meaningful participation in society instead of shutting them off behind an ivy curtain.

In my recent post questioning the origins of what seems to be a sudden awareness of men’s issues, I wrote that the transition appears to have begun about two years ago. In asking what trends might have converged to spark an awakening of sorts and the emergence of a new generation of writers and activists, I received a number of thoughtful and well-written comments, proving that I am far from the only person thinking about this.

While I intend to concatenate these responses in a future post, I found a two-year-old article written for Salon.com that gives us a clue as to what has been going on in the late 2000s, and sheds some light on the cultural changes that may have helped bring awareness to the fore.

The article, “Women are the new men on TV,” reviews a number of TV shows scheduled to debut in 2007. Although many of these shows never got anywhere, the theme and tone of the shows is very revealing, depicting an America where men have lost their way, and their very manhood. I would urge readers to read the entire article, as it is a well-written piece and surprisingly candid coming from a female entertainment writer (Rebecca Traister), but I will include a few of the better quotes below for readers without the time to slog through three pages.

Traister starts off on a positive note, pointing to the empowering roles women are portrayed in:

Sept. 12, 2007 | Here’s the good news: When you turn on your television this fall, you’ll be watching more women kick more ass than you can possibly imagine — physically, economically and sexually. Hard-bodied and smart, rich and aggressive, confident and independent, the chicks who populate the prime-time lineup are being cast in roles that once belonged almost exclusively to men. These broads are cops and lawyers and masters of the business universe. Hollywood doyennes like Kyra Sedgwick, Mary-Louise Parker and Holly Hunter have already found midlife career solace (and good writing) on cable. This year, Julianna Margulies will star as a nasty Nancy Grace knockoff, Angie Harmon as a police lieutenant, Lucy Liu as a publishing executive, and Patricia Heaton as a news anchor; there’s a new “Bionic Woman” and a whole show about the world’s leading incubator of the future, “The Terminator’s” Sarah Connor. The flinty Cagneys, Laceys, Murphys and Buffys of yore aren’t the exceptions in the new TV season; they rule.

Note the adjectives used to describe the women in the shows: aggressive, confident, hard-bodied, independent. These are not traits that men generally find attractive in women, but perhaps women themselves enjoy being portrayed as such.

Next, the roles men are cast in are markedly different from those of women:

So what happened to the men? Nothing good, that’s for sure. Here, for instance, is what happens when Lucy Liu’s character, Mia, on ABC’s “Cashmere Mafia,” wins a work contest, and big promotion, over her boyfriend and colleague Richard: He breaks up with her, tail between his legs. “I thought I’d win and buy us a place and take care of you,” he explains. “And now that it’s reversed I just can’t see us … I’m 40 next month. I want someone to come home to. I’m going to want kids, and we’re just going in opposite directions.”

[...]

It can’t all be coincidence that this season is coming at the end of a summer in which the biggest movie hits have featured dopey, ill-groomed, irresponsible boys who score beautiful high-achieving women and then have no idea what to do once they land them. That’s right, we’re in Apatowland, baby, where the idea of a male romantic lead now begins with a water bong and ends with a fart joke. This isn’t an isolated trend; it seems to be a broad cultural response that speaks to enough people to keep it floating.

[...]

Among the degradations about to be heaped on television’s men? There are guys whose wives cheat on them, whose girlfriends get promoted over them, whose mates make more money than they do; guys who get left out of baby-making, who date women with penises and at least one who gets anally raped by a monkey.

Men are shown to be needy, awkward and juvenile. They are kicked around by women and sexually assaulted by monkeys — in fact some were actually portrayed as monkeys themselves in the short-lived “Cavemen” show (based on the Geico commercials). Now, the idea of a horny monkey may be a bit funny, but would any TV show ever portray bestiality as an acceptable punchline where a woman was concerned?

The depressing litany continues:

The idea behind “Carpoolers,” voiced several times during its pilot, is that daily trips to and from work are the only escape for these four miserable men, who have nothing in common except a barely disguised antipathy for the women in their lives. Aubrey’s wife has him by the balls: He waits on her, cooks and cares for the kids while she watches television and takes his money. Laird (Jerry O’Connell), the carpool’s founder, has been dumped by his wife, who cheated and left him with nothing but an ass-print on the sliding glass door.

[...]

The fury and confusion about shifting gender roles as expressed on “Carpoolers” is scary in its nakedness. At one point, Laird suggests to Gracen that he talk to his wife about how she’s spending his money. “My money? Ha ha, no,” says Gracen. “All the money I make is our money; it always has been. The money she’s making now is her money.” Aubrey chimes in, “Well at least you have your money. My wife gets my checks; I don’t even know how much I make!” To which Laird says, “My wife and I have it all worked out out. She gets everything. Her lawyer saw to that.”

Traister is starting to see the implications of these shows, and she doesn’t like them:

“Carpoolers” does more to impugn the American male than any high-earning spouse could ever do. But if this sitcom is any measure — and god willing it is not — the American female is fucked. There is no mode of femininity that satisfies these guys: The wife who is too successful makes her husband feel unmanly; the wife who doesn’t work makes her husband bake; the wife who leaves is a bitch who takes the furniture.

Welcome to the male world, Ms. Traister; these TV shows, bad as they are, contain more than a kernel of truth.

Below, one of the biggest sources of female discomfort is clearly revealed:

It’s understandable and honest to express some befuddlement with shifting expectations. But these are characters whose discomfort makes them unattractive, or silly-looking. They are whipped, flummoxed and helpless without the power to make the calls — in the bedroom or the boardroom. They can’t just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control, who do childcare or play a subordinate role at work but who do so in a way that is still sexy, still powerful, instead of in a way that is marked as submissive, beaten down or pansy-assed. Nope, they must be buffoons, caricatures, dopes or just angry, neutered bastards.

That’s it: the men are unattractive after they have been subordinated. Traister wants them “to just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control.” Doesn’t she realize that putting men in the role she and millions of other women wanted us to fulfill required a serious social and legal beatdown as well as a massive seizure of power? Like the woman who cuckolds her husband, she wants men to be reasonable and accepting rather than “angry, neutered bastards.”

Summing it up:

Little wonder that many of these programs include plotlines in which women and men turn in on their own gender to fulfill their social, professional and sexual needs. Many of us who rather enjoy the upturn in women’s professional, political, sexual and social fortunes might think that it could only help our relationships with the men we love and respect, and with whom we come ever closer to being considered equal. But if television is any measure, and this summer it appears to be measuring something palpable in our collective consciousness, then it seems that as our field gets closer to level, men and women are simply not playing well together.

Traister sees that it isn’t working, but she doesn’t get it. Women have a huge blind spot when it comes to what they have helped do to men. Women, together with a small elite of men at the apex of society, have collectively engaged in a war on the average American man, and even after doing so they can’t understand why men are acting like defeatists, bereft of pride and able to show defiance only in the most abject, naked displays of their emasculated state.

Ferdinand Bardamu has a good reminder up about netiquette. Social networking is a big thing these days, and Ferdinand is pretty good at it. It takes time, dedication and a work ethic. I see a lot of publications that could really use guys like him to make a big difference in their online presence.

What confuses me is why so many online media companies continue to hire clueless, technically incompetent PR girls with worthless communications degrees when they could hire on guys like Ferdinand to do the job four of them couldn’t. It’s almost like welfare. What are all these marketing chicks really adding to the economy? Are they really productive at all?

Frankly, I don’t think so. If I were some publishing bigshot, I’d hire smart young guys to handle the tech and SEO for online presence, and hire a few girls with communications degrees to fetch coffee and keep the bathrooms sparkling clean. If they proved some ability to write I’d give them a job doing so, but not without some real results first. Even these feminist websites with good traffic rankings, such as jezebel.com, couldn’t even come close to standing on their own. Jezebel sits on top of gawker.com, and the others are little more than tweeting fiestas that call Hannah Montana to mind. Here’s a Taki Mag example of a tweetfest in action: Tweet Fight.

Inane, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, until fathers around America, quit paying their daughters’ $1,200/year iPhone bills this will continue. Hopefully, this will happen sooner than people expect, slashing tween garbage sites like so much stubble after the harvest.

In the meanwhile, I’ll bet on smart young guys who know how to use all the tools at their disposal. You should too.

For some time, I have been following the efforts of Glenn Sacks to educate people about the nature of domestic violence, which, despite popular opinion, is not solely – or even mostly – initiated and perpetrated by men.

However, despite mounting evidence that proves women are every bit as involved in DV as men, old prejudices die hard, and old bigots with tenure have a taxpayer-funded pulpit from which to broadcast socially harmful lies about the nature of inter-partner violence in America. In this hallowed tradition of academic arrogance and unsubstantiated statements, doubtless encouraged by political norms on campus, we find a professor at the University of Maine casting female domestic violence – including knife attacks – as self-defense.

In an article in the Kennebec Journal, University of Maine sociology professor John Oplinger is quoted suggesting that violent female aggression against intimate partners is only a natural result of abuse at the hands of men:

“They’re a little bit less likely to take the abuse that was routine in the past,” said Jon Oplinger, a sociology professor at the University of Maine at Farmington. “They’re fighting back.”

Although there is little evidence that abuse of women was routine in the past, or that they sat back and took it passively (in fact, spousal murder of husbands has dropped significantly since the 1970s), Oplinger just has to find some rationale that justifies violence against men.

Fortunately, the local police and Public Safety Commissioner have a more balanced view of the situation. Somerset County Sheriff Barry DeLong, who has 36 years of experience in law enforcement, suggests that in the past, nobody took female aggression against men seriously:

“When I started, you might see one a year,” said Somerset County Sheriff Barry DeLong, who has 36 years in law enforcement. “I think police officers are more attuned to it. In the past, it wasn’t even looked at. Domestic violence is for everybody now.”

It is fortunate that police have begun to take it seriously, because, according to the article, last year more women than men stabbed their partners in domestic disputes in Maine.

Public Safety Commissioner Ann Jordan also notes that men who were victimized felt ashamed to come forward in the past:

“Ten years ago,” she said, “many men would not come forward because of the stigma involved. And there’s an increase in the use of drugs and alcohol, on both sides. People who wouldn’t normally assault do so when they’re under the influence.”

Sheriff DeLong also notes that women have been behaving in an increasingly masculine manner, going out and drinking at bars after work rather than tending to their families.

Readers should take note of the fact that the most strident defense of female misbehavior comes from a tenured, male bigot speaking from the ivory tower of academia. The ordinary people on the street see it for what it is: a social problem that fouls up lives and disrupts society.

There is no practical difference between liberals and conservatives in the old guard of America. Female misbehavior, whether it be promiscuity, pointless divorce, illegitimate children or knifing people, is all the fault of men. It is a quasi-religion with profoundly harmful social implications, and the faster we can remove these men and their Amazon auxiliaries from power the better off we’ll all be.

People have apparently forgotten that you don’t have to be a mother to be a parent. Here in the states one frequently runs across the “herb,” or homo feministus, soft-stepping in the shadow of his swaggering she-man of a wife, often pushing a stroller or wearing a frontal papoose, which was designed for ease of breastfeeding. “Why would a man ever wear something designed for breastfeeding?” you might ask. Fortunately for us confused men, a Swedish professor has provided the answer:

“Healthy children know instinctively that the breast has a dual function. One gives them milk, the other gives them warmth and a cosy bond… [men] should take the opportunity to get closer to their child by offering them their breasts in the same way as women.”

So there you have it: men would be better parents if only they became mothers. Anyone who has survived a custody dispute knows that this is exactly the view of most social workers and judges right here at home. The mother is primary parent; the father secondary at best, and he is often suspected to be a malign, dangerous presence in a child’s life. Perhaps the evolution of fathers into mothers with penises is inevitable given the social pressure and hatred of all things masculine that has swept over the West like a feminist jihad.

In a healthier society, the role of father would be seen as just as important as that of mother, but different in quality. Mothers nurse and swaddle the children, and fathers guide them as they take their first steps out into the world. The mother shelters and comforts the child, and the father encourages his sons and daughters to venture forth and grow, under his watchful eye, of course. One represents security, and the other freedom. Children need both, and to remove the masculine influence of a father from their lives is to impoverish children and stunt their emotional and spiritual growth.

As surrogate mothers, men are doubtless inferior creatures, but the worst damage they can do to children in that role is to deprive them of the confidence and purpose that masculine influence brings into their lives.

One thing that gets me to scratching my head about this emergent consciousness about men’s issues is how quickly it seems to have sprung out of nowhere. Well, to be sure, it only seems to have come from nowhere; it had been bubbling up for decades, but until recently nobody seemed to take it seriously.

For example, I started my blog a couple years ago without any real idea what to write about. What I really wanted to do was practice my coding and design skills to widen my toolset. I wrote about various things at first, including some male-oriented stuff, but I wasn’t really focused on anything in particular. Then, one day, while in the midst of a miserable separation, facing the loss of my children and pretty much everything I cared about, I wrote my Men’s Liberation piece. It must have been one of those moments of creativity that can accompany severe stress and pain, but it did give me a philosophical framework for survival and hope. And shortly after I posted the piece last year, I got a favorable comment from some guy named “Roissy.” Of course, I had to check out his blog, and what an eye-opener!

Now pretty much all of us know about Roissy, MRA, MGTOW, PUA, etc., etc. Other blogs have gained steam and started to pick up attention, and the phenomenon has been referred to as the “Roissysphere”. Even Steve Sailer is writing articles addressing our issues now, and Steve’s the kind of guy who can see a trend.

It seems as though this all started less than two years ago. It’s really pretty amazing how quickly a mass consciousness has begun to emerge around men’s resistance to the facade of falsehood that has, to be quite blunt, screwed a lot of us men.

What I’m really interested in is what social trends caused this? Were there any particular laws, economic changes, or media shifts that created a wave of dissent? All I can think of is that this is the culmination of VAWA and the economic displacement of men. We were already being squeezed before the recession hit, but now we’re in a vice, and it’s only getting tighter.

Any thoughts from readers as to why men’s issues have so suddenly started to break the surface and reveal themselves?