Another Modern Women Hurt Men Article

[debrand]

I discovered a site by an admirer of the Bayly Brothers. Because clicking on articles lead to other sites, I am linking to their entire blog instead of this specific article. If you scroll down, you'll find post entitled An Entire Generation Of Men

 

danielberkompas.com/

 

 

Quote

Here’s an article (courtesy of Jordan Muela) that I found particularly interesting. It confirms what Tim Bayly said recently at our church’s “Heritage Weekend†conference. The world is wondering what happened to men in my generation.

 

Read the comments too. It’s a Facebook thread so I don’t know what will be there once you see it, but when I looked at it, there were many comments demonstrating that some people, at least, see the problem.

 

Here’s an example:

 

"The first thing that needs to be done is for women to accept that they are women and not men and too shun feminism and acknowledge that there are vast differences between men and women that are necessary for a people to thrive. There’s a reason there are no women playing for the NFL.

 

Rid the nation of feminism, political correctness, boot all women from the military forces (every single last one of them), boot them from the police and fire departments and to stop invading men’s’ domains, and that will be a good beginning.

 

Teach women to be feminine and men to be tough gentlemen and there will be more marriages…attractions will be unstoppable.

 

What normal man wants to marry another man? Today’s women (not all) are women only on the outside. God made woman to be at a man’s side–to be his advisor and most trusted friend.

 

Today, many American woman just want a pool boy…because we must remember that they’re independent and don’t really need a man full time anymore.

 

After all the women are booted out of the military and similar institutions, more jobs will be available for men to be men and become men. Women should be focusing on the next generation and not careers. Careers is an excuse used to avoid motherhood. The hardest and most rewarding job for a woman is being a wife and a mother, teaching their children the road they should travel…teaching boys to become men (with fathers leading the way here) and girls to become women–especially the girls.

 

- posted by “RockHard†(The whole comment is worth reading)"

 

Perhaps there is opportunity for the Church to present a vision for young men that is lacking in our culture. There seem to be a number of people looking for answers.

[Jenesis Jexodus]

"Today, many American woman just want a pool boy…because we must remember that they’re independent and don’t really need a man full time anymore."

That's what his pitiful gripe is really about. He's not 'needed'. Look jerk, stop your whining, be a MAN and accept that women want to be valued for who they are, not belittled into needing a jerk like you.

[Doomed Harlottt]

God made woman to be at a man’s side–to be his advisor and most trusted friend.

It is amazing to me that guys who say things like this simply cannot fathom why women might have a problem being defined entirely in terms of being at a man's side -- as opposed to having value in our own right. Yet they will whine and carry on ad nauseam if they feel they have been diminished in any way.

[dairyfreelife]

Wow, men's domains? Jackass needs to stfu because he does not know what he is talking about.

Teach women to be feminine and men to be tough gentlemen and there will be more marriages…attractions will be unstoppable.

One-women are naturally "feminine" meaning they will look like females and be attractive to males. Same goes for men. It's not something that has to be taught and the ideas of what are attractive vary among individuals, cultures and societies. And attractions already are unstoppable, you moron. :roll: If they weren't, everyone would be single right now.

What normal man wants to marry another man? Today’s women (not all) are women only on the outside. God made woman to be at a man’s side–to be his advisor and most trusted friend.

You cannot be a friend with a woman when you think of her as less. That's not how friendship works. One can lead at times, but the other has to lead from time to time too. When it's dominant/submissive always and the dominant treats his companion as less, that friend will stay only out of duty and fear, not out of respect and trust.

Today, many American woman just want a pool boy…because we must remember that they’re independent and don’t really need a man full time anymore.

Neither men nor women "need" a spouse to survive, but many still want that companionship because most of us want love and to be loved back. Today, most couples have respect for their partners as they see their partners as an equal, not as a lesser being. I'm a very independent person and have always been that way. I still want marriage and love just like most everyone else. I just expect that any man I marry will think of me as an equal, not as him being the dominant one. I don't want to be dominated and controlled by my spouse. I don't want to be at his mercy and I don't want him to feel he has the right to be that way because he was born with the XY chromosome.

After all the women are booted out of the military and similar institutions, more jobs will be available for men to be men and become men. Women should be focusing on the next generation and not careers. Careers is an excuse used to avoid motherhood. The hardest and most rewarding job for a woman is being a wife and a mother, teaching their children the road they should travel…teaching boys to become men (with fathers leading the way here) and girls to become women–especially the girls.

I don't get how treating women with equal respect and opportunity and security is supposed to be bad. Most women don't have careers to avoid being a mother, but to earn a living. And, just a correction-Careers are an excuse-it's plural. It was bugging me. When I see men write this sort of drivel, I can only see a man who is insecure and feels he has to be in total control, even over his family and his culture only strokes that ego-i.e. fundie culture. You're right, most women today don't want a useless boy like you. Real women want real men who don't fear their capabilities and strengths. And real men want real women are not afraid to hold their own.

I already know I may not be able to have any children so any man I marry will already be aware of this fact and therefore I expect he would respect me as more than just breeder to carry on his genes. That's not to say that people who want children think of women as that either. If I ever have children, by birth or adoption, whatever, I won't be raising them to "be boys" and "be girls". I want my children to be themselves and I want them to find their own paths and likes and dislikes, with the guidance of his or her parents and teachers and people they meet along the way in life. I don't want any sons I may have to be dominating arses and I don't want any daughters I may have to be made submissive wimps. I want my children, if I have any, to be able to hold their own, both boys and girls and to stand up for themselves and others if necessary. I want them to respect themselves and others, not have a show of who is better when it comes to finding a mate one day.

[galaxygirl]

I would love to have a pool boy, because that means I have a pool.

[Jenesis Jexodus]

I would love to have a pool boy, because that means I have a pool.

LOL. I just know that God is going to allow me to make that jerk my pool boy in heaven, poetic justice.

[lilah]

no women playing for the NFL.

With few exceptions, women don't compete against men in any sport.

I rather detest the fundie argument that if every woman was mass fired tomorrow then you'd solve the unemployment rate for men because it presupposes you know behind every employed woman is an equally qualified man who can take over her job. (especially since women are more likely to take jobs below their desired pay grade then men. Or would want to take her jo) And it assumes that every currently employed woman has some father, husband or brother who can support her since she's not bringing in an income to her family.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

"Today, many American woman just want a pool boy…because we must remember that they’re independent and don’t really need a man full time anymore."

That's what his pitiful gripe is really about. He's not 'needed'. Look jerk, stop your whining, be a MAN and accept that women want to be valued for who they are, not belittled into needing a jerk like you.

Indeed. And the guy who wrote that little missive signed it as "RockHard"???? it doesn't get more golden comedy than that. :lol:

[liltwinstar]

boot all women from the military forces (every single last one of them), boot them from the police and fire departments and to stop invading men’s’ domains, and that will be a good beginning.

Tell that to the WACs and WAVES (and their counterparts in the UK). We wouldn't have gotten too far in the Second World War with out their efforts, not to mention the women on the home front who worked for the war effort. Actually, I'd like him to tell that to an active-duty female soldier newly returned from deployment...he'd get his ass handed to him.

There’s a reason there are no women playing for the NFL.

Yeah, it's because the NFL doesn't allow women, not because women aren't capable. One of my cousins played professional women's football, and those players were awesome! Also, there is a "lingerie football league" where the women play football while wearing lingerie and padding (and where they have to agree to "occasional nudity" as an occupational hazard) and many of the women who play it do so because they love football and it's their only option to play it professionally. Which is all kinds of sad, but it just goes to show it's not a lack of skill, desire, whatever on the part of women - it's because they're barred from participating in the sport in any other way.

If this douche wants to court/date/marry a hyper feminine woman becasue he finds all other types of women unattractive, fine, that's his right. But it's patently untrue that women who differ from his personal aesthetic standard are "destroying" the world. Ugh.

[finleeport]

I would like to say that without Feminism, women wouldn't be the only people oppressed, men like me would be forced to act tough and unemotional, like my Dad wants me to be because he thinks I'm not "man enough"

This dude is using Gender stereotypes as well as propaganda.

[JuJuBee]

His argument is terrible because it focuses on physical strength. Putting aside the fact that many women are physically strong enough to be in the police, army, etc--since when is "manly" physical strength required for most other careers? He carries an argument regarding physical strength over to insist that all women should drop their careers and go back to the kitchen. Because if a woman can't play football against a man, she sure as heck shouldn't be a lawyer arguing in the courtroom or a doctor researching a cure for cancer. :roll:

[samurai_sarah]

With few exceptions, women don't compete against men in any sport.

I rather detest the fundie argument that if every woman was mass fired tomorrow then you'd solve the unemployment rate for men because it presupposes you know behind every employed woman is an equally qualified man who can take over her job. (especially since women are more likely to take jobs below their desired pay grade then men. Or would want to take her jo) And it assumes that every currently employed woman has some father, husband or brother who can support her since she's not bringing in an income to her family.

Tsk, tsk, you and your pesky logic and reason! :naughty:

There are thousands of men who could do my job in an instant, because it's not like it took years and years of education and training. And my dad, brother and partner would be more than happy to have to provide for a grand total of five women, who are suddenly unemployed (and children soon enough), because that is totally feasible!!11!!!

Meanwhile, back in the real world... ;)

[2xx1xy1JD]

Tell the dude to open his Bible and read Judges, Chapters 4 and 5, before mouthing off about women in the military.

I'm reading his rant and thinking "Dude is demanding draconian curtailing of rights just because he thinks he's entitled to someone else's job even if he's not qualified, plus he needs girls to be without a form of support so that they'll finally be willing to be with him."

[VodouDoll]

Teach women to be feminine and men to be tough gentlemen and there will be more marriages…attractions will be unstoppable

I would rather be single for life than get involved with a man who admires the Baylys. I could never, ever be attracted to someone who follows their teachings on gender roles.

[galaxygirl]

Anybody want to tell him that the UK had a female prime minister back in the '70's, she even *gasp* had a husband and kids. Bad, bad Maggie!

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Tell the dude to open his Bible and read Judges, Chapters 4 and 5, before mouthing off about women in the military.

I'm reading his rant and thinking "Dude is demanding draconian curtailing of rights just because he thinks he's entitled to someone else's job even if he's not qualified, plus he needs girls to be without a form of support so that they'll finally be willing to be with him."

SRSLY. That's what most of these rants boil down to, whether couched in religious language or not.

"Oh, woe is me, the traditional sexual compact has broken down, I'm not guaranteed a woman anymore because the women aren't kept needy and desperate enough to need what I have to offer." It's rage-inducing. People owe him, they're supposed to limit themselves so that he can feel better about himself.

On a more general level "I want you to validate me by needing me, and I'm going to keep you helpless because I HONOR you so much, and look how helpful I am, how dare you reject me or have a problem with it - because if you do, I'm going to remind you of your weakness" is just creepy and twisted no matter who the participants are. Eff "chivalry."

[finleeport]

Anybody want to tell him that the UK had a female prime minister back in the '70's, she even *gasp* had a husband and kids. Bad, bad Maggie!

If you mean Margaret Thatcher, she was not actually a good prime minister, so some Brits would say.

[Anxious Girl]

I like how he'ss generalizing that all men think this way. I have a guy friend who some may call feminine/gay because most of what he likes to do is considered girly, and likes to hang out with my other friend who is a girl, and another guy friend most of the time. Another thing: so if we revert back to the late American 40's lifestyle where all the able men 18+ are drafted to go to war, who's going to be working on the homefront? Certainly not women, according to this guy. They should be staying at home while their teenage sons go and work, while the literacy level of the country may be dropping because half the men are at war, and the economy going down because of women are expected to stay home by society. Just food for thought.

[desertvixen]

Rid the nation of feminism, political correctness, boot all women from the military forces (every single last one of them), boot them from the police and fire departments and to stop invading men’s’ domains, and that will be a good beginning.

You and what Army? Besides, if we all took our frilly little selves and went home, some of these jerks might actually have to do the heavy stuff.

[Funky Chicken]

If you mean Margaret Thatcher, she was not actually a good prime minister, so some Brits would say.

I'm not a Brit, but I think that what might have made her a less than desirable PM was because she was a conservative, not because she was a woman (just my opinion though, and I don't know much about UK politics). She was voted in for a long time though which suggests that she floated somebody's boats, and maybe it didn't matter what sex she was.

Of course, here in Oz right now we have a female PM who *gasp* lives with her hairdresser boyfriend, in SIN!!!111!!!

[samurai_sarah]

I'm not a Brit, but I think that what might have made her a less than desirable PM was because she was a conservative, not because she was a woman (just my opinion though, and I don't know much about UK politics). She was voted in for a long time though which suggests that she floated somebody's boats, and maybe it didn't matter what sex she was.

Of course, here in Oz right now we have a female PM who *gasp* lives with her hairdresser boyfriend, in SIN!!!111!!!

Without knowing too much about her, I have a small crush on your PM for that alone. :)

I'm not a Brit either, just lived here longer than I care to admit, but from what I gather from my friends - especially here in Scotland- it has nothing to do with her gender. Chromosomes didn't make her policies better or worse. They would have made lives miserable if they'd come with XY chromosomes too. Okay, I'm reporting hearsay: I've never heard anyone bash her for being a woman, just for being an elected politician with damaging policies. By the bye, during the last elections, I did hear a lot of friends and acquaintances say they weren't going to vote for David Cameron, because the Tories under Maggie, did such damage. Nothing to do with gender, just the policies a whole party stood behind.

[acheronbeach]

What does this asshat think that cops actually do all day? The job is only 10% brute force, and 90% planning arrests/searches, photographing exhibits, testifying in court, making diligent notes, preparing disclosure, contacting victims, measuring crime scenes, speaking to kids in school, etc.

And what about officers that just do what he'd consider "women's work"? Does he want men to answer phones? Contact domestic violence victims? Interview children who have been abused? Or female sexual abuse victims? Would the police just have to stop putting fake hookers out on the streets to catch johns?

NEW IDEA: Having a vague idea about a subject before you spout off on it.

[Burris]

Oh, this is gonna be sweet.

Here’s an article (courtesy of Jordan Muela) that I found particularly interesting. It confirms what Tim Bayly said recently at our church’s “Heritage Weekend†conference. The world is wondering what happened to men in my generation.

It's amusing, in a grotesque sort of way, how one guy can participate in a circle jerk of shared prejudices and unsupportable assumptions and then allow that someone else from the same circle – an individual who, surprise, parrots the same lines as this guy does - can be seen as "confirming" an unsupportable claim.

The first thing that needs to be done is for women to accept that they are women and not men and too shun feminism and acknowledge that there are vast differences between men and women that are necessary for a people to thrive. There’s a reason there are no women playing for the NFL.

You usually don't see small guys in the NFL, either. Guys who play pro-football are generally bigger, stronger, and more committed to maintaining their fitness and agility – they're professional athletes - than the average man.

Even small men with a high commitment to athleticism may still be too weak for the gridiron, and so that's why one rarely sees them on the field.

An average woman's lack of upper body strength when compared to the average man is being used here as an excuse to ghettoize and subordinate women; it's being offered as evidence of such a difference between the sexes that woman are only slightly above the animals where basic rights are concerned and only men are entitled to the full slate.

If "women can't play in the NFL" is the negative standard by which human rights are granted or withheld, then Doug Phillips and the Bayly Brothers and John Piper would all be fucked. I guess they'd be honorary women, being too weak for football, and so they should give up their careers and get their asses into the nearest kitchen to make the larger men a sammich.

Back here in reality, however, human rights are for everyone regardless of size or occupation or even disability.

Sojourner Truth is reported as having said the following in defense of woman's rights:

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full? (Circa 1851)

The point: Human rights aren't granted based on merit. Even if it were true that women are less intelligent than men, that's not any kind of excuse to deny women equal rights. If indeed women were ill-suited to certain jobs, they'd either be declined or weeded out, but they should be permitted try for it and fill their cup – whatever its size – as full as possible.

Rid the nation of feminism, political correctness, boot all women from the military forces (every single last one of them), boot them from the police and fire departments and to stop invading men’s’ domains, and that will be a good beginning.

Deny your mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, cousins and friends an equal opportunity to apply for and test their way into a job. That will be a "good start" if you want a massive labor shortage, including of army nurses and female EMTs. Oh yeah, and it would also be a gross violation of all their civil rights - but since they're only crummy women anyway, who gives a shit. The only people who should have rights are the ones who are capable of playing pro-football.

Teach women to be feminine and men to be tough gentlemen and there will be more marriages…attractions will be unstoppable.

Wha...where's the fucking proof for that assertion?

What normal man wants to marry another man?

Gays.

Oh, right; they don't deserve human and civil rights either, even if they can play pro-football. They may have all the parts, the upper body strength, and this alleged intellectual advantage over women, but they fuck men and that's gross to the author whose personal standards should, like totally, determine who is worthy of civil and human rights.

Today’s women (not all) are women only on the outside. God made woman to be at a man’s side–to be his advisor and most trusted friend.

Sure - but how the hell is a woman going to be a good adviser, trusted with delicate matters, if her education is sub-par and if she's denied career opportunities that could help the family through financial rough spots?

You say you want helpmates, but you won't let women develop useful skills – skills their husbands might need to tap - in an accredited training school. You say you want them to be advisers, but you also think they're too dumb to make their own decisions or to know their own limitations.

What you really want is a maid who'll fuck you.

Today, many American woman just want a pool boy…because we must remember that they’re independent and don’t really need a man full time anymore.

And what you want is a subservient fuck toy who operates more as a robot than as a human being. You can't talk about stripping women of their most basic rights and still expect they'll love you for it rather than seeing you merely as a "pool boy."

After all the women are booted out of the military and similar institutions, more jobs will be available for men to be men and become men.

I'm sure men will just be lining up to work as nurses or administrative assistants.

Women should be focusing on the next generation and not careers. Careers is an excuse used to avoid motherhood.

Most women have jobs, and most women are mothers, and there's a huge overlap between the two.

You, sir, are simply full of shit.

The hardest and most rewarding job for a woman is being a wife and a mother, teaching their children the road they should travel...

Yeah, I'm sure staying home all day, every day, is so much harder than that army nurse job I mentioned earlier - and more rewarding, too, for some reason.

Perhaps there is opportunity for the Church to present a vision for young men that is lacking in our culture. There seem to be a number of people looking for answers.

I have a novel idea for all the fearful menfolk: It's called Personal responsibility.

In that model, a person's behavior is usually a matter of choice, such that he can still be the kind of man he wants to be without also oppressing women. His character and self-worth should be in no way dependent on what others do. Seeing women in the workplace shouldn't threaten him – and it wouldn't, so long as he paid attention to his own job rather than criticizing the work of others.

Civil and human rights are not a zero-sum game. There's no need to oppress one group to maintain full rights for another group.

In short, man the fuck up and stop blaming other people - chiefly women, it seems – for your own failures and character deficiencies.

[AnnoDomini]

Oh, my father is against women serving in the military (except nurses) and law enforcement too. At least he was last I checked. Something about it being outside the role of women, and women were not to put themselves in high-risk jobs... it's been a while since we had that conversation so my memory's fuzzy. Though I bet he'd consider police matrons and the cops who go undercover as hookers a 'necessary evil'.

[doggie]

Face it fundy men You hurt yourselves. you can blame it on woman all you want but in the end you are responsible for your lousy lives.