It’s womens turn to change
I believe that it is now Women’s turn to change.
Most of them need to develop insight into their sexism, to revise their supremacist self-image.
We, Men have been changing for 30 years as we recognised our contribution to traditional cultural inequalities for Women.
Contrary to popular rhetoric and repeated even within the Men’s Movement, it is actually Women who are 30 years behind Men!
That is because the vast majority of women do not even recognise, let alone acknowledge their crucial part in the cultural inequalities for both men and women, but increasingly men.
Millions of women still do not recognise or acknowledge the profound impact that their traditional feminine self-absorption and self-righteousness is having on interpersonal, social, economic and political events.”
Richard Millicer 1997
Posts RSS 2.0
Before criticising, remember the stories told to young children - what are children made of? Princesses and princes and frogs….. boys being sent (at the sharp end of a bayonet) off to fight wars,,,,,,, the hare and the tortoise… our happiness is pretty much programmed by the “expectations” built into us as children, whether reasonable or not!
Much “unreasonable” expectation, is based on incomplete knowledge of how the world works.
The only book that I have read, that addresses these issues for women is “What our mother never told us”, by Dannielle Crittendon. If you have a copy, please share it with your friends.
Surely, giving a good upbringing depends on developing a child’s ability to handle life’s cruel challenges as well as the positive surprises that come to us.
Think back though your own childhood stories and try to imagine yourself as being the opposite gender - what would these stories be telling you? (What has the mother of your children said about these issues…..)
Think back to the people (and books) telling these stories to you, How did they live their lives? What values did they live by? How closely did the values they talked about, parallel the values that they lived by (think this through as if you were the opposite gender too!)?
Much communication between generations, does not communicate as intended! This complaint is 2500 years old, nothing new under the sun.
I believe that these stories have had quite a different effect on our boy children, from our girl children, as told by many parents.
Communicating values to children, is harder and slower than most other communications. Checking back on how the message was received, tends to take almost a generation.
Where do you stand in all of this?
What are you saying to your children?
How are they hearing it?
What barriers are there, to you communicating values and expectations to your own children?
What are you doing, to communicate despite these barriers?
Are you doing things differently for your girls and your boys?
Best wishes, MurrayBacon
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 9:28 am
Murray,
(good to to read your script) although I don’t think you are being clear.
Are you advocating that a boy is as likely to prefer a doll as he is likely to prefer a truck in order so to play?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 4:35 pm
I think this post about it being womens turn to change offers some important insights.
I certainly think that feminists are 30 years behind the times.
The whole feminist view of the world is based on so called “critical thinking”. This means some group has the power and another group is therefore disadvantaged. In the case of feminists the theory is that men have the power and women are victims. However in western society - particularly NZ - that theory is not only false it is usually the other way around. Women often have or else take the effective power and men are disadvantaged.
The 2nd problem with this concept is that family men don’t view relationships as a power struggle. That is the last thing a man wants at home. Yet many women do see it as a power struggle - to varying degrees. This makes them unattractive to men - to varying degrees.
I am at a university which likes to claim to be a leader in social sciences. 60% of students are female. If international students were excluded the ratio of male students would be even less. There are women’s represetentives, all kind of women only scholarships, constant feminist postings and of course women’s studies. None of this for male students.
The government rates the quality of lecturers and professors at univeristies. It continues to find that the quality of female professors is significantly lower than male professors. This is reported as “Patriarchy”.
This isn’t a university on the cutting edge of research in social sicences. It is practically in the stoneage as far as recognising and responding to social realities.
Comment by Dave — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Yes, I agree and its obvious condition in its many forms when presented should be overwhelming - but where are the numbers to overwhelm - and more importantly Why are they not lining up to support what you say?
Why? We have to ask ourselves this if we are to achieve - why?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Auckland University has just marked itself as Jurassic in terms of the social attitudes pervading on its campus.
Paul Buchanan was one of the very few academics I listened to with attention whenever he appeared on television - a man with a brain, independent thought and cut-to-the chase attitude.
Sacking the guy because he showed a little temper would be over the top in a sensible world, but that’s not what we currently live in. It’s par for the course now for men.
I note a security guard of some 20+ years was sacked yesterday by TVNZ for daring to voice a contrary opinion to Christine Rankin, and of course David Benson-Pope found he was history for messing with a woman - stuffing tennis balls into boys’ mouths was, by comparison, no offence at all.
Comment by Rob Case — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Bloody hell Ben!!!
A succinct comment from you!!!!
That deserves a response!!
I don’t know why but I can speculate. I’ll include examples to illustrate why the answers might be valid.
Firstly, if you haven’t dealt with the Family Court, etc. then you are probably unaware of how serious the problem is. You probably just think – better to let some women have it their way than get abused.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0621276520070706?src=070607_1941_ARTICLE_PROMO_also_on_reuters
Secondly there is a certain degree of brainwashing from feminism, the media, the socialist government, etc. In addition there are institutionalised obstructions to getting the reality out there. E.g. P. Boshier
Thirdly, some men are ‘going their own way’. Something like 500 males in those child rearing and productive age groups are leaving NZ and not coming back. The brain drain is mostly males leaving NZ - i.e. voting with their feet. Over 500 a week leave for Australia alone. The man shortage is not just that intelligent hard working men are leaving the country for good but in addition some are avoiding marriage. Some men are marrying women from other cultures. Many men have put their assets into trusts as a result of the property relationship bill. The so called “child support” situation must be the biggest civil disobedience action in history. 140,000 out of 190,000 people can’t or won’t keep up with their payments. That Act must be the biggest failure in NZ parliamentary history since 74% of people can’t or won’t comply over a long period of time. In addition that ratio is increasing.
Fourthly many men are broken. If you beat a dog often enough it stops getting up. We know of plenty of examples of this so no need for me to elaborate.
Fifthly, these are not issues that men like to talk about for fun. They would rather be left to get on with their lives. Unfortunately they are increasingly being prevented from doing that.
Comment by Dave — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 5:07 pm
OK, so let’s say we have two in agreement for the facts as they may end.
I question whether your determination on marriage that which you coroborate by its example; that the relationship measurements of the study show men to be soft cocs against simply having the practical sense not to adjust a boat’s direction that tips whenever you rock it.
So we have agreed on why. Then - if this is in fact agreed and we recognise such abandonment as a collective problem as disaffecting our brethren ranks, the question surely becomes; How do we draw to the attention of that abandoning mass that their reason for abandonment may well be justified.
Do you agree that this is the next question?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 10:25 am
Benjamin,
Some questions for you:
Who are the two in agreement?
What facts are you referring to?
How does “as they may end” assist what you are trying to say?
To whom are you addressing yourself?
What “determination on marriage” are you referring to?
do you mean “demonstrate by example”?
If not, what?
What study are you referring to?
(btw, shaming language is something I normally expect from feminists)
Helming a boat, and a boat’s instability, do not seem to me to have much to do with “practical sense”.
Do you mean that an unstable boat requires more skill and perseverance to hold its course?
Unclear to me on what,so agreement on why doesn’t follow.
Do you mean abandonment of marriage?
If not, what?
who are the parties to the “collective problem”?
What does “disaffecting our brethren ranks”, mean?
What was the question?
By “abandoning mass” are you referring to men who choose not to marry?
If so, why would there be any need to bring it to their attention that they are justified? (they already know that).
How could anyone answer this, if you haven’t:
1)stated who you are addressing yourself to
2)been clear in what you were talking about
3)buried your point under vague references and over-elaborate word use.
The essence of good communication is what is not said.
Not as cryptic as it sounds - it means there should be no word present that doesn’t assist the message.
It also means the more you leave to the reader to come to the conclusion you want, by their own thinking, rather than by word-for-word instruction, the better.
With Respect,
Rob Case
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 11:48 am
The questions you ask are difficult to reply to using the library machines, without access to cut and paste, and you make my reply more difficult for failing to separate the points you want answered individually
… however,
Quote 1: (i) I agree with Dave. (ii) The facts, whatever they may end as from the ensuing dialogue (iii) You’ve missed the point a the beginning. But for the exception of Quote 2: My position has been given as unconditional. If you have missed the literal value of this then you have overridden the value of the reply on the basis that there is no necessity to properly evaluate the meaning of the text. You ask me for the value. The value is clear. It is unconditional. That is what agreement means with the exception of conditions which you merge awy from with point 2.
Do you comprehend what I said - or am I still being confusing?
Q2: merged into Q3 and Q4 and Q5: I mean corroborate. A demonstration is entirely different. He concludes his opinion as favourable to the subjective study (the article you seem to have entrilely missed from Reuters) demonstrating his conclusion as fair reason for men to abandon any need (the original question) from finding unity. Here, determination and example are one in the same. Dave put up the example of the study, to explain what beleived to be fair reason for men to go. That wasn’t what the study concluded at all. He used it to define his argument. Firstly from the point, your point on derogatory language holds with me, althuogh you may not have picked up exactly wwhat I said. I should have capitalised this to make it more clear. I spelled COC. This was an obscure reference to the Care of Children bill about which I always complain and really is the host of my cause for the original question to Dave. IN front of everyone is an absolute blatant abuse of men. The men, including you on this site accept this. Yet they do nothing in reply. Why I have asked Dave. He has replied.
At this point, your overall reading of my reply has gone pretty astray, and it is time for me to go to the House of Representatives for Question time. I will answer the rest when I return from the House.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 1:17 pm
So waht I said before was that Dave gave a reply using an example as to what he meant. I agree with him. Unconditionally, but for the condition we need to debate, which is on marriage and the relationships between men and women in those relationships.
Ordinarily people say, who wears the trousers, mostly in a derogatory way, but I argue differently. I assess from Dave’s presentation that he believes men are weak - or possibly forced. I figure it is more like human nature and teh bloke tends to sit back and get on with being himself because otherwise he gets swamped. If he complains then all hell can break lose as we see. In marriages, unlike any other instiution there are vows to protect from the damage by oath, honour and promise. We are in the process throughout our society of mitigating this value. Integrity went out the window like a steve maharey at question time.
Brethren as far as I am aware is the term for group of like kind.
I mean abandonment of fatherhood.
The mass are the men who have abandoned fatherhood. Marriage is the traditional and I would say natural instiution of that commitment to any one son or daughter.
I don’t believe, still that my word use is over elaborate. Not clear - sure. That doesn’t mean that some people, when they take their time don’t comprehend what I read. And I have readers who read everything I write. They reply often enough to say any one particular missive was difficult. If so i try and explain. Yet in this case it is quite obvious if you had followed the thread that I was replying to Dave. If you had followed his link then you would have been better prepared to challenge the validity of what I said.
I went into the House of Representatives on July 1st 2003. Stood up in the House and effectively demanded that there was an emergency. We are living in that enmergency now. Didn’t a little girl just the other day geet hung out to dry, just to prove that the abuse of neglect on families is rife? I’m not going to wait on you Rob. I have told you constantly what is in front of you and what you can do about it. You’ve even replied saying to me “good luck”. I write to Dave in this way because I am tired of yuo not listening: he with as good a brain as any the same. The judges the same. The politicians the same. You are just not prepared to listen. It is all in the about you.
On June 10th MW breached her responsibility to the public by unlafuklly discriminating against fatherhood allowing single women and lesbian couples to have babies without securing for the child their right to associate with their biological dad. Simple. That’s you: a citizen; a dad. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. You want to slowly divulge information you are not prepared to read.
Are the IRD taking out from the paying parents’ nett earnings money that cannot belong to the government but under the disguise of in the best interests of the child: when it doesn’t go to the child? Yes. Absolutely. What are you doing about it?
So the question I extend to you, is why cannot men work together? And then if you give me an answer l;ike Dave did, I will try and write my reply in answer that you can figure. But I will tell you what my reply will be in concise fashion.
A: So if not, how?
The question from WHY is now HOW.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 4:56 pm
It’s not about you or me Benjamin.
I just wanted to know what you were talking about.
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 5:15 pm
OK, I’ve explained.
I ask the question again. Why haven’t the men’s groups claimed unity so to disaffect a migration from fatherhood?
And if we haven’t how will this be done?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 5:46 pm
I’m currently in communication with an experienced MR campaigner who gives quite a detailed outline on why MR groups fail.
His is the voice of decades of experience. Once I have his permission to post his material, I will do that.
I assure you that you will recognize what he says.
(Probably within the next 24 hours).
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Rob - I look forward to reading that.
Ben - you need to take a deep breath and reflect on what Rob wrote. You know I have great respect for you but you do need to make some changes if you want people to understand you and listen to you more.
Ben, with respect man, you are the most over elaborate word writer I have ever read or read about. And I do a lot of reading.
It takes massive amounts of interpretation to guess at the meaning of most of what you write.
You really need to start writing succintly.
You need to write what you mean in as few words and in as simple and direct language as you possibly can.
PLEASE!!!!
Comment by Dave — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 7:39 pm