Phil #3 wrote:


"Chris" wrote in message
...


"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...


"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
m...


"Chris" wrote in message
...



[snip]


[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the
whole problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group,
get radical and vocal.


That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that
idea.. (1) men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal
about it or not and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure
for men to rally around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow
those in front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a
central, organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep
them turning in the right direction is what is required for the MRM
to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups
that, much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in
turn is what feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a
nut-job. Which leads us to another part of the problem, lack of
media support or good, pro-father stories in the media. A good deal
of that can be laid at the feet of the Hollywood elite by their
constant portrayals of men as complete dopes and utter fools. After
being fed a steady diet of "Dad is a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years
the public buys into it, hook, line and sinker without ever raising
an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about
former Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted
Letterman's head in a pike for insulting a young girl and
insinuating that rape would be good for her. But whereas people
went into an uproar over this happening to a female, not a peep was
heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize to the MAN he
slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
getting into the ring with the girls.


That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active
and unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and
react. This whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about
since the 1960's when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
women, are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions
of governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and
minorities who are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs,
taking and active part of the process while the majority of men
ignored it at their own peril. Approximately 63% of voters were from
urban areas and 66% under the age of 30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100%
of black voters cast ballots for Obama then flatly state that anyone
who opposed his policies do so because of racism... and no one bats
an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
mature mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home
Improvement, etc.), and for many this becomes real-life; almost a
documentary. And men ignore it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


Well stated. I personally know a handful of middle-aged white men who
have applied for (and received, believe it or not) government welfare.
They figure if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Slowly, but surely, the
U.S. is becomong the U.K.

[By the way, food stamps come in the form of a credit card, better
known as a "dignity" card. WHY? Are the government people saying that
collecting welfare is a shameful act to be concealed?]


Two of my sons (raised by their mother who restriced my involvement)
currently get food stamps and have for several years. They are both
healthy and capable but lazy, a lifestyle they didn't get from me.
Neither hold a job longer than it takes for unemployment benefits to
kick in then they stay unemployed until benefits end only to repeat the
cycle with a low-paying job that won't end their eligibility. I've
voiced my displeasure with their actions but decades of indoctrination
is firmly planted.
Yet they both recognize the anti-male actions of government yet enlist
voluntarily. I just don't get it. Perhaps they are just getting what
they can, while they are able.
Phil #3



Wow, this really is a window into your denial. Boys emulate their
fathers (or a father figure) close to 100% of the time. If they were
indoctrinated, it was the example of victim hood, impotence and weakness
from their male role model(s) that indoctrinated them into this sort of
lifestyle. The whole "get into a union, volunteer for the first round of
layoffs, collect benefits and live cheaply" lifestyle is fairly common
and pretty rewarding for a guy with hobbies and no ambition. That's why
fathers (father figures) are the key to this, boys enjoy ANYTHING as
long as they are getting some positive reinforcement and instruction.
City kids will love fishing and hunting if they are taught to do those
things, redneck kids will love tennis if they are encouraged to do that.