Could it be true is there a war on men a conscious usurping of the place and role of men



“The Whole World in Her Hands”: A Gyno-Maniacal War on Men? – UPDATED (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/05/21/the-whole-world-in-her-hands-a-gyno-maniacal-war-on-men/)

Now it is came to this! Men are feeling insecure because women are independent. Another new age propaganda of men to put a leash on women.

If men are feeling insecure over this then perhaps they need to man up . But yeah this is Western culture's wussification of men . It starts in school where boys are no longer allowed to play contact sports and otherwise be boys. When they play sports or anything else competitive there are no winners or losers . It also happens at home where there are so many single parent families that boys are often denied positive male role models .

Deal with it! Can you blame females for being tired of men telling them what to do?

In today's paper --

"[There is a] shift in American society. An Associated Press-WE TV poll of people under 50 found that more than 2 in 5 unmarried women without children — or 42 percent — would consider having a child on their own without a partner, including more than a third, or 37 percent, who would consider adopting solo."

And these are career women with money in savings accounts.

Poll: 2 in 5 women would consider parenting solo - Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/20453927-423/poll-2-in-5-women-would-consider-parenting-solo.html)

Tell you what I can't deal with anymore ,the inept , bumbling dad image that is ever present in mass media . You know ;the ones that get schooled by their children,the immature arrested development types who cannot walk and chew gum and needs constant direction from wife and children to survive. This type of sexist stereotype is perfectly acceptable today.
T-Mobile Smart Guys MyFaves Commercial - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW5SDMaxc6E&feature=player_embedded)
New Huggies Commercial - Dad Campaign - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIdRq-AxeU0)
(Huggies pulled the most offensive ads that insult fathers and introduced this 'not all dads are imbiciles ' ad... geee much better !
Lowe's - Dumb Dad Ad - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E_tI3QDaSM)
Stupid dad - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=861Ak-59inU)
In the mind of popular culture ,dads are a cross between Homer Simpson and'Everbody loves Raymond '... an incompetent man-child.

Look around the world at the women who are still mutilated as girls, denied education, considered useless damaged goods if raped, married off without their consent, maimed or killed for glancing at men not their husbands, and kept behind veils and in back rooms. Even the 'modern' countries kept women from owning property, inheriting, voting, and so on.

Men are going to have to deal with some pent up frustration. If they allow themselves to be wussified it's their own fault. I am a woman and when I see a wussy commercial, I don't look or I change the channel. For decades it was a 'rule' of advertising that the man be in a dominant position in an ad with a woman, either leaning over her while she sat, or standing while she sat. The worst ones were ads for cigarettes, until 'You've come a long way baby' became a huge hit.
Then there were all the ads where the man lectured or advised a woman about household products... all just as bad as the ones now, if not worse for me anyway, because I saw them growing up.

I read the first part of the article and don't agree with most of it.

Look around the world at the women who are still mutilated as girls, denied education, considered useless damaged goods if raped, married off without their consent, maimed or killed for glancing at men not their husbands, and kept behind veils and in back rooms. Even the 'modern' countries kept women from owning property, inheriting, voting, and so on.
Now, tell me your best guess why this is (or was).

Now, tell me your best guess why this is (or was).

Because starting a few thousand years ago men saw daughters as bargaining chips, to be bought, sold, and traded, for land, animals, and protective alliances.

Because starting a few thousand years ago men saw daughters as bargaining chips, to be bought, sold, and traded, for land, animals, and protective alliances.
I agree and think that men see women as a mystery (bodies that can produce a baby, the menstrual cycle), a mystery that needs to be subdued and controlled.

I agree and think that men see women as a mystery (bodies that can produce a baby, the menstrual cycle), a mystery that needs to be subdued and controlled.

That too!

I agree and think that men see women as a mystery (bodies that can produce a baby, the menstrual cycle), a mystery that needs to be subdued and controlled.Not this guy!

Not this guy!
You've unraveled the mystery and yet don't feel threatened?? And you don't want to dominate and fence us in?

They start emasculating them when they are young...


In the latest incident of anti-gun hysteria to erupt in a school setting, a kindergarten boy has been suspended from school for 10 days because he showed a friend his cowboy-style cap gun on the way to school.

The incident happened on Wednesday morning at about 8:30 a.m. on a school bus in Calvert County, Maryland, reports The Washington Post.

The kindergartener had brought the toy gun because his friend had brought a water gun the previous day. He later told his mother than he “really, really” wanted his friend to see it.

The suspended boy had acquired the menacing, plastic, orange-tipped weapon at Frontier Town, a western-themed campground with a water park, mini golf and the like.

School officials at Dowell Elementary School in the town of Lusby proceeded to question the five-year-old for over two hours before finally calling his mother, whom The Post also does not name.

The principal eventually called the boy's mother at 10:50 a.m. By that time, the five-year-old had wet his pants (which the mother called highly unusual).

The principal told the boy's mother that the boy had simulated shooting someone on the bus with the offending novelty. However, both the boy and his older sister, a first-grader, say the principal is not telling the truth.

The Post explains that the principal — Jennifer L. Young, according to Dowell Elementary's website — told the kindergartener's mother that things would have been even worse had the toy gun been loaded with caps. In that case, the school would have regarded the plaything as an explosive and called the police.

“I have no problem that he had a consequence to his behavior,” the mother told the Post. “What I have a problem with is the severity.”

The mother is also upset about the trauma her son experienced without her knowledge.

“Why were we not immediately contacted?” she asked

The 10-day suspension is officially for possessing a look-alike gun, notes the Post. If the suspension is not lifted, the kindergartener won't be able to go to school the rest of the year. The suspension will also be part of his permanent academic record.


Kindergartener interrogated over cap gun until he pees his pants, then suspended 10 days (http://news.yahoo.com/kindergartener-interrogated-over-cap-gun-until-pees-pants-123613141.html)

they start emasculating them when they are young ...
And the school officials were male? I see the principal was female, but what was this boy's point in bringing a gun to school. Domination? Subduing?

You've unraveled the mystery and yet don't feel threatened????? And you don't want to dominate and fence us in?

"Yes Dear"!! It's not that hard! Its only hard when a wussy male has his ego wrapped up in dominating a status symbol female to meet his needs as a male to convince himself and everyone else he is an exceptional male and not a wuss.

You know the ones Arnold refers to as girlie men. All men cannot be dominant alpha males.

The big secret is many men are threatened by independent dominant females. But the wussification of men by a female(S)is a stretch.

You've unraveled the mystery and yet don't feel threatened?? My daughter started her period last weekend :) Oddly enough we still hang around and I feel much less like giving her the beatings that I use to give her... y'know, jus' 'cause she's a girl.

The big secret is many men are threatened by independent dominant females.Probably the same ones that buy Hummers. :D

And the school officials were male? I see the principal was female, but what was this boy's point in bringing a gun to school. Domination? Subduing?


I pray that you are not endorsing the behavior of the school officials.

I pray that you are not endorsing the behavior of the school officials.
Absolutely not!

One Sunday, my minister's-wife Mom took my little brother's winter jacket off after we had sat down in church and was horrified to discover he had strapped on his gun belt with two holsters that held his six guns. We still chuckle about that.

And the school officials were male? I see the principal was female, but what was this boy's point in bringing a gun to school. Domination? Subduing?

Don't think a kindergartener thinks that way.
The kindergartener had brought the toy gun because his friend had brought a water gun the previous day. He later told his mother than he “really, really” wanted his friend to see it.


Obviously a cap gun is an explosive device . Obviously the kid needs to be sent to Gitmo for some water boarding... on second thought... maybe the school officials who grilled him until he peed in his pants should be subject to some waterboarding until they pees in their pants.

don't think a kindergartener thinks that way.
Did you see my post just before yours? "One Sunday, my minister's-wife Mom took my little brother's winter jacket off after we had sat down in church and was horrified to discover he had strapped on his gun belt with two holsters that held his six guns. We still chuckle about that."

We decided not to waterboard him. I don't think he even got spanked.

Sounds like something I would've done.

Did you see my post just before yours? "One Sunday, my minister's-wife Mom took my little brother's winter jacket off after we had sat down in church and was horrified to discover he had strapped on his gun belt with two holsters that held his six guns. We still chuckle about that."

We decided not to waterboard him. I don't think he even got spanked.

Kids play and just maybe he feels insecure in that female dominated society

Kids play and just maybe he feels insecure in that female dominated society
This was back in 1952 -- very male dominated society..

This was back in 1952 -- very male dominated society..

Comment still applies perhaps even more so. Male domination is an illusion perpetrated by females. It suited females to be seem in the subserviant role, the power behind the throne has always been their act

Maybe he should've been carrying a pop tart in the shape of a gun. That would've gotten him only a 7 days suspension.

Maybe there needs to be some reality in the system, you would castigate and punish a child for a cap gun but allow millions of weapons to be freely possessed, where was that child's right to bear arms?

Maybe he should've been carrying a pop tart in the shape of a gun. That would've gotten him only a 7 days suspension.
My brother (and you too!) could take bites out of a piece of deli meat and make it look like a gun. He could even hold his right hand with fingers and thumb pulled into his palm and his index finger pointing out to "shoot" us. Take his guns away and he has other avenues.

It's Time to Stop Treating Dads Like Idiots (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-gouveia/its-time-to-stop-treating-dads-like-idiots_b_3179351.html) says, Huffpo.

It's Time to Stop Treating Dads Like Idiots (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-gouveia/its-time-to-stop-treating-dads-like-idiots_b_3179351.html) says, Huffpo.

I agree

More evidence that the war is growing

PM targets 'men in blue ties' (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-targets-men-in-blue-ties-20130611-2o26s.html)

It has become fashionable to wage a war on men for political reasons particularly when the electorate is going to wipe you out

Maybe in crazy oz-land.

No just that crazy red headed bltch we have masquarading as a leader

The war has backfired on the big red box, I smell blood in the water

Male support for PM crashes (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/male-support-for-pm-crashes-20130616-2ocet.html)

If men are feeling insecure over this then perhaps they need to man up . But yeah this is Western culture's wussification of men . It starts in school where boys are no longer allowed to play contact sports and otherwise be boys. When they play sports or anything else competitive there are no winners or losers . It also happens at home where there are so many single parent familes that boys are often denied positive male role models .

The men of yesterday stayed with their families. They had defined roles, boys and dads,daughters and mothers. That's why things were different. Today guys get women pregnant then walk away and act like they have no clue they have a child out there. Women had to evolve into mother and father "super-beings" and while most succeed in raising excellent kids some fall short. We live in a nation of single mothers. Women get pregnant and today still have only one choice, most won't make that choice, so we become mothers, unintentional, in some cases but mothers nonetheless. We don't get to walk away from being pregnant, especially when we can't even tie our shoes. If men could in some way experience the biology of pregnancy I think most would never abandon the child, regardless of how they feel about the pregnancy or the mother. The war on men started with men walking away from their responsibility to their sons and daughters and will end when men "put themselves" back into the equation.

The war on men started with men walking away from their responsibility to their sons and daughters and will end when men "put themselves" back into the equation. Yes indeed that is part of the solution. Blaming the men is convenient . But you fail to identify the underlying change that happened. Yes part of it is the permissive culture of the left . The other part of it is the unintended consequences of government social experimentation and attempts at poverty erradication. The reason that some men can walk away is that the government has made it financially beneficial to do so.

Yes indeed that is part of the solution. Blaming the men is convenient . But you fail to identify the underlying change that happened. Yes part of it is the permissive culture of the left . The other part of it is the unintended consequences of government social experimentation and attempts at poverty erradication. The reason that some men can walk away is that the government has made it financially benefical to do so.

You speak as though women have no responsibility and yet the real responsibility for pregnancy lies with them. Outside of Rape they have total responsibility but they don't take it and the fault also lies in the safetynets that they have. Men walk away because they become unwelcome they are unable to provide or they aren't allowed to be part of the process, expected to finance the child without contact. The permissive culture doesn't just exist on the left, the right bears responsibility for their attitudes and enabling too, the right considers it chic to use women and cast them aside and then wages a war on men I see it in my own family, the girl allows herself to become pregnant and I hear the platitudes such as he will do the right thing by her while at the same time world war III rages between them and is this the first time, no, obviously the idea of cause and effect hasn't taken hold. Where I come from there is a whole mechanism for extracting child maintenance from the male and yet the only option they are left with to have any sort of life is to drop out otherwise the result is punative worse than taxation. One child they might afford but if there were more in the family... the burden is far more than they would conribute in a family relationship

the right considers it chic to use women and cast them aside I do not think that is correct.

I do not think that is correct.

Not even vaguely in the realm of reality.

We have enough evidence to conclude the right wants everybody to go by their model of moral correctness and limit options to their way of thinking. Add to that the economic pressure on families in today's broken business model, and by today I mean decades, The nuclear family has little choice but to fail.

As further evidence I can submit the activities and behaviors of states with right wing controlled legislatures. They are making laws to promote the limits and basis for women's choices, while letting cities go to pot. Less cops, less teachers, and privatizing entire functions of the state to produce more for profit schools, and for profit prisons, while business elites import more skilled labor, depress or eliminate wages, and benefits, and blame the left for not addressing poverty while they suck all the money out of the economy and publicly denounce the victims of the broken business model as lazy takers.

Displacement and poverty are the effects of the broken business model that has nothing to do with capitalism, or a "free market" and more to do with greed and opportunities for the few.

Displacement and poverty are the effects of the broken business model that has nothing to do with capitalism, or a "free market" and more to do with greed and opportunities for the few.

Got it in one Tal and how many times have we said it, but it has to do with capitalism, greed is implicit in capitalism

"The men of yesterday stayed with their families. They had defined roles, boys and dads,daughters and mothers. That's why things were different. Today guys get women pregnant then walk away and act like they have no clue they have a child out there. Women had to evolve into mother and father "super-beings" and while most succeed in raising excellent kids some fall short. We live in a nation of single mothers. Women get pregnant and today still have only one choice, most won't make that choice, so we become mothers, unintentional, in some cases but mothers nonetheless. We don't get to walk away from being pregnant, especially when we can't even tie our shoes. If men could in some way experience the biology of pregnancy I think most would never abandon the child, regardless of how they feel about the pregnancy or the mother. The war on men started with men walking away from their responsibility to their sons and daughters and will end when men "put themselves" back into the equation."

Three posts, one of them on a thread going back to 2009, all of them bashing men, one of them being able to tell that the person asking the question is lying. I'm an investigator - I can guess who I think is not truthful, but I don't have it down to a science.

I see issues and a need to tell the story.

So, why does Mom4Life come on and tell her story?

I don't believe life is "all" of this or "all" of that - if she chose a man who "got her pregnant" (apparently she had no participation in the big event) and then walked away, isn't this as much about her bad judgment as it is about men who walk away?

And I'm the first to admit I've made some questionable choices about the men in my life. I just don't blame all men when I pick a loser.

EDIT: For anyone searching out other posts, at least one has been pulled.

We have enough evidence to conclude the right wants everybody to go by their model of moral correctness and limit options to their way of thinking.

Hogwash, repeat the lie often enough... and apparently you believe it.


Add to that the economic pressure on families in today's broken business model, and by today I mean decades, The nuclear family has little choice but to fail.

For starters, you guys are busy telling us our kids don't belong to us, undermining parental rights, telling women they don't need men, fighting traditional marriage tooth and nail, and as tom said, "the unintended consequences of government social experimentation and attempts at poverty erradication. The reason that some men can walk away is that the government has made it financially benefical to do so."

And you say the family has no choice but to fail? You made that happen.


As further evidence I can submit the activities and behaviors of states with right wing controlled legislatures. They are making laws to promote the limits and basis for women's choices, while letting cities go to pot. Less cops, less teachers, and privatizing entire functions of the state to produce more for profit schools, and for profit prisons, while business elites import more skilled labor, depress or eliminate wages, and benefits, and blame the left for not addressing poverty while they suck all the money out of the economy and publicly denounce the victims of the broken business model as lazy takers.

Displacement and poverty are the effects of the broken business model that has nothing to do with capitalism, or a "free market" and more to do with greed and opportunities for the few.

Yes, Texas is so oppressive, backward, the economy here sucks and opportunity is nowhere to be found.

Add to that the economic pressure on families in today's broken business model, and by today I mean decades, The nuclear family has little choice but to fail.
What nonsense ! The family unit didn't fail in the heart of the Great Depression. There is a clear identifiable time that we can trace the collapse and it coincides with cultural and legislation that passed in the post-WWII era..

"The men of yesterday stayed with their families. They had defined roles, boys and dads,daughters and mothers. That's why things were different. Today guys get women pregnant then walk away and act like they have no clue they have a child out there. Women had to evolve into mother and father "super-beings" and while most succeed in raising excellent kids some fall short. We live in a nation of single mothers. Women get pregnant and today still have only one choice, most won't make that choice, so we become mothers, unintentional, in some cases but mothers nonetheless. We don't get to walk away from being pregnant, especially when we can't even tie our shoes. If men could in some way experience the biology of pregnancy I think most would never abandon the child, regardless of how they feel about the pregnancy or the mother. The war on men started with men walking away from their responsibility to their sons and daughters and will end when men "put themselves" back into the equation."

Three posts, one of them on a thread going back to 2009, all of them bashing men, one of them being able to tell that the person asking the question is lying. I'm an investigator - I can guess who I think is not truthful, but I don't have it down to a science.

I see issues and a need to tell the story.

So, why does Mom4Life come on and tell her story?

I don't believe life is "all" of this or "all" of that - if she chose a man who "got her pregnant" (apparently she had no participation in the big event) and then walked away, isn't this as much about her bad judgment as it is about men who walk away?

And I'm the first to admit I've made some questionable choices about the men in my life. I just don't blame all men when I pick a loser.

EDIT: For anyone searching out other posts, at least one has been pulled.

I am not bashing men. My MIT educated ex is far from a loser. I am fair and balanced enough blame to go around. I did not allow myself to get pregnant either. I am a mother. I take the responsibility serious and I work and take care of my responsibilities. Now I can comment on post just like you, if I see a topic, I can give my opinion just like you. You feel the need to label me a man basher, and call my ex a loser, then hint I'm a liar, why? Because I don't say what I am expected to say? I am the product of wonderful parents who are married and enjoying their retirement together. My dad is my hero, my mother is my inspiration, I can only hope to morph into a combination of the two as I get older. You are an investigator, great investigate why men seem to think that a woman would allow her self to get impregnated on 2013. Seriously? If my ex had told me he had been sleeping with men since college anytime during the 6 yrs. We were together, do you think we would have a 2yr old child, no. The reality is things happen and you find that you actually have no control over it as you thought. I work in government legal system, the belly of the beast, so yes I have insight most don't, specific to family law. I am not blaming men, if you investigated you would clearly see were I suggested a grandmother keep both the mother and father away. Blaming men, that's elementary. I replied to three post and gave my opinion and I will continue to do so when a post envokes a response. I just joined so I only got to 3, so investigate that. By the way my ex is living in the light, we are best friends and we co- parent very well as it should be.

"You are an investigator, great investigate why men seem to think that a woman would allow her self to get impregnated on 2013. Seriously? If my ex had told me he had been sleeping with men since college anytime during the 6 yrs. we were together, do you think we would have a 2yr old child, no. "

Seriously? Your personal attack on me is unnecessary and uncalled for.

You appear to have very thin skin and anger issues. I fail to see why/how a man who lied to you about having other relationships or contacts while in a relationship with you, put you in danger of contracting a veneral disease, must have lied to your face on more than one occasion, is not a loser simply because he graduated from MIT. Of course, you know him, I do not.

You have twice called other people liars. Where did I call you a liar (if it matters at all)?

I have no idea what this means - "I just joined so I only got to 3, so investigate that." What? You got three what?

For that matter, what does this mean? " I did not allow myself to get pregnant either. I am a mother." Aren't all women who have children mothers?

I also don't understand the relevance of working in the government legal system. An Attorney, Judge, social worker, file clerk? I investigate for that same system, an occupation you seem to find, at best, amusing - I note how many times "investigate" and "investigator" appear in your answer.

You certainly can post your opinion. I also can post mine. That's a given.

"You are an investigator, great investigate why men seem to think that a woman would allow her self to get impregnated on 2013. Seriously? If my ex had told me he had been sleeping with men since college anytime during the 6 yrs. we were together, do you think we would have a 2yr old child, no. "

Seriously? Your personal attack on me is unnecessary and uncalled for.

You appear to have very thin skin and anger issues. I fail to see why/how a man who lied to you about having other relationships or contacts while in a relationship with you, put you in danger of contracting a veneral disease, must have lied to your face on more than one occasion, is not a loser simply because he graduated from MIT. Of course, you know him, I do not.

You have twice called other people liars. Where did I call you a liar (if it matters at all)?

I have no idea what this means - "I just joined so I only got to 3, so investigate that." What? You got three what?

For that matter, what does this mean? " I did not allow myself to get pregnant either. I am a mother." Aren't all women who have children mothers?

You certainly can post your opinion. I also can post mine. That's a given.

Imagine the good if we could put our heads together and offer great insight instead of doing this. I look forward to engaging you in productive debate from time to time. I'm off to my office now, have a good day.

Good to know you aren't on AMHD on Government time.

I am! :D

I'm on the clock, but that's OK - it's my own company.

Smiling back at you.