Archive for the ‘War on Men’ Category

Like many inquiries, the answer starts within the tenets of evolutionary biology.  In order to have the best chance of passing on their genes,  a woman is faced with a dilemma.  On one hand, it’s in her best interest, seeing as she will invest 9-months in carrying a child and years rearing it, to pick the highest-quality, genetically fit male available to make babies with: this is the essence of the sexy son hypothesis.  On the other hand, she also needs a man that will stick around, that will help out in raising the children, to provide the resources that are necessary to insure a healthy and well-protected mother and child.  These two reproductive objectives are not mutually exclusive, and she intuitively weighs both factors during the dating process.  The majority of the time, she is successful in finding a mate whom meets her genetic quality standards, but will also commit to staying with her long-term.

However, there is an alternative that a deceitful minority of women can use as well – the old bait ‘n switch.  Women’s sense of smell is more acute during ovulation (women can actually smell, via pheromones, clues to a man’s genetic fitness) and women are more apt to act flirtatiously during ovulation by dressing and dancing more provocatively, as well as going out socially without their primary partner.  It makes sense, then, that women are also more prone to hook up with the alpha males they lust for, and are more prone to cheating on their boyfriends and husbands during this part of their cycle; it’s a strong, biological urge that must be hard to resist, especially if their significant other is a beta.  So those are the pre-conditions for what happens next: an unplanned pregnancy.  Now women are faced with a real dilemma, especially if they are in an long-term relationship and their man isn’t really the father.  Some choose abortion, others decide to keep child and be honest about the situation. But others will bear down and tell the pretty lie, likely convincing themselves just as much as their boyfriends, that the baby could be his, so why not just go with the convenient story. It’s a touchy subject, and not enough scientific studies have been done, but ~10% of children are unknowingly raised by father’s who aren’t actually theirs.

So then, what recourse is there for men that have been deceived?  Surely, the judicial system in the United States, fair and decent as it is, must give legal assistance to those parties wronged.  Tell that to Richard Parker, who found out a couple years after his divorce, via DNA testing, that his 3-year old son, whom he was required to pay child support for, wasn’t his.  Florida law requires that he could only petition the court within 12-months of his divorce to file his lawsuit.  He took his case to the state’s Supreme Court, which rejected his claim 7-0.  Justice Kenneth Bell wrote the decision, saying, “while some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present.”  So, the state of Florida is basically saying it’s a man’s fault that he trusts his wife, and that he can be financially punished if he doesn’t figure it out quickly enough after his divorce.  My blood boils. In what world is this just? Oh yeah, this one, right here in the United States. The article goes on to state that “most states have laws that permit courts to order men who have been deceived to continue to make child- support payments even when they have no biological connection to the child”, so don’t think this injustice is only Florida’s problem.

This is just one example in a myriad of legal instances where men are considered second-class citizens in the eyes of Family Courts and the law.  The best recourse men have is to simply never get married.  At least you won’t end up paying for a kid that isn’t yours.  More discussions to follow…


Read Full Post »

… I wonder if another woman is what we need.   This iconic quote from Chuck Palahnuik’s Fight Club might have been a rallying cry to the men of Generation X in the book/movie, but his observation still holds a lot of weight today.  In time, there has been an over-feminization of American society and culture that has diminished certain aspects of masculinity. I’ve always considered myself to be an equal rights activist and I put a high value on treating people fairly, regardless.  And I don’t want to diminish the positive outcomes of the women’s suffrage and feminist movements either.  But life in the post-feminist world has brought with it some unintended consequences.

First, I bring you to this critique of Fight Club by feminist blogger Jennifer Kesler.  She says, “the men in Fight Club have all experienced an odd feminization process, due to a society which has tried to diminish feminine energy, only to have it bubble up and fill the vacuum, ready to explode: the equal but opposite reaction to be expected in any system of balance.”  But does society really diminish feminine energy?  It very well might in some arenas, but she misses the bigger point, that society is really diminishing masculine energy in a lot of ways too, and this is what the member’s of Fight Club are rebelling against.   She does, however, hit the nail on the head later, saying “Our society hasn’t just broken its promises to women; it’s broken trust with all of us. And the people at the top are neither men nor women; they are genderless piles of insecurity in the form of human flesh. They are as afraid of real men as they are of real women, and tricking us into thinking we’re pitted against each other has been their greatest weapon all along.”  Much of our cultural conditioning stems from this dynamic: that the power class wants to maintain control and thus, in perfectly orchestrated groupthink, have developed mechanisms to keep the proles in check.  One of these is by keeping an unruly minority locked in jail.  But another is by suppressing masculine energy, the more dangerous of the two.

Our society constantly puts women’s sexuality on a pedestal, while implying that men are powerless to resist their charms.  Men are commonly painted as slaves to their sexual appetites; advertising towards men and the fusillade of pornography (the comment about the vagina’s decreasing exchange value, speaks volumes) often leaves that same, not-so-subtle message.  How many times have you heard the myth that men think about sex every seven seconds?  The truth is that this dynamic drains men, particularly betas, of a lot of power.  If the goal is for both sexes to be treated equally, then men need to take back control of their own sexuality.  What does it mean to be a man today?  If you look to men’s magazine’s as a guide, Esquire will tell you that it’s, well… women: the first thing mentioned on their site, followed by clothes, eating and drinking.  Too often, the stereotype of the American male is portrayed as more Homer Simpson than Theodore Roosevelt.

As Bill Simmons noted recently (in bullet point #4), the boundaries of activities that men can call their own are shrinking by the day.  Historically, of course, this needed to happen; women should have the same legal rights to do anything men do. But in many instances, these boundaries have been pushed too far.  I have a friend, whose son just started the Boy Scouts.  His troop leader? A woman.  The troops activities have included face painting and scrapbooking.  Scrapbooking!  It shouldn’t be too much to ask to have a man be in charge of a Boy Scout troop and this is not discrimination to ask for this.   Boys in the post-feminist era have heard their parents and teachers constantly tell girls that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up.  In my childhood, my sister was told she could be both a model AND a doctor, implying that women can play in both the traditionally masculine and feminine fields.  But the same type of encouragement just simply isn’t given to boys, many of whose father’s are too busy earning the monies to spend quality time raising their children.  Thus, the next generation of men is even more likely to be raised by women once again.

Read Full Post »

Vanesha Dillard and her 18yo bf aren’t the sharpest tools in the bag. In a mildly premeditated heist, they robbed the pizza guy of 20USD, tied him up and stuffed him in the car truck for 30 minutes, and let him go.  Any responsible prosecutor needs bring them to court; any responsible judge needs to convict them.  But the fact that U.S. taxpayers will pay to incarcerate these two individuals for 10 and 18 years, respectively, is just one more example of an overzealous legislative and judicial system that is responsible for keeping more people in jail than any other country in the world.  Russia, the only other comparable country statistically in this department, convict 99.3% of defendants that appear in court.  This clearly doesn’t happen in the United States; to make up the difference, we keep our prisoner’s jailed longer.  Unusually harsh drug enforcement tactics such as the three strikes law play a big part of this, around 25% of the prison population were convicted of non-violent drug crimes.

In a nation that supposedly embodies the concept of freedom, the fact that 1% of our population, (thus, nearly 2% of our men) are simply not free, is a problem.

Read Full Post »