Friday, January 13, 2012

Lucia True Grown-ups and a little on male emasculation [UPDATE]

A few days ago Crusader Rabbit linked to two articles related to the website A Voice for Men titled Feminazi "journalist" gets her ass kicked. Big time.  One was an attack on the material contained on the site and the other was an attack on the female journalist who dared to attack the site.  They think the Voice for Men author is winning the argument with the female journalist, however it is early days as she has said that she will go through the assertions she's made in her opening article in more detail in the near future, and therefore there is not a lot of substance to what she's said.  Yet.  I'm sure it will come.

I've been thinking about the issues that were brought up by both articles over the last several days.  As there is a bit of a cross-over in the material that I've been reading and this subculture of men who feel disadvantaged and discriminated against by just being men, I thought I'd broaden the perspective a little.

In a 1903 illustration ironically titled "The Weaker Sex", a tiny, pleading man was examined, under glass, by four beauties who poked at him with a knitting needle.

As a result of my research over the last couple of days, I found that in the United States more than one hundred years ago, this idea of men being emasculated by women was being promoted in the media. There were many images published, such as the illustration above, of tiny men being toyed with by giant women.   It all changed again during the WWI era when women suddenly became images of liberty and nurturers again.  Men obviously don't go out to fight in wars because women are poking them with knitting needles, they go out to fight because they love us and their families and will do what it takes to protect us and what they value.

The symbolic meaning of the big female-little male characters in J. C. Leyendecker's "Weapons for Liberty" poster was doubled through costuming. In this allegorical scene, the crowned, flag-wrapped woman was Liberty, while the kneeling little boy protected Liberty through preparation. The smaller figure provided the action of the picture. What's more, dressed as a Boy Scout, he represented an organization that strove to protect future men from "feminizing" influences.
I found it very interesting on how the images of women during the pre-WWI era acted as propaganda, seeking to subtly influence the culture's view of women.  Considering that both men and women working together is what makes a strong culture, this cultivation of a war between the sexes seeking to show how one dominates the other from the past was most disturbing.

And so back to Voice for Men.  One of the articles I read there was Feminists: demented, stunned or cultists, whereby the author concludes that radical, feminist women consider that women are like children, and finishes off by stating that, "Women need to grow up" these women need to grow up*.  Which got me thinking about what it actually means to be a grown up, which was the original purpose of this post, until I got distracted with explaining the background.

My definition of a Grown Up

A grown up is a person who does not put their needs, wants and desires first. They are more interested in looking after those they are responsible for than looking after themselves, even to self-sacrifice. In short, they die to themselves so that others might live.

The young child is the very opposite of this. They need to be trained to think of others, encouraged to share and to feel empathy for those they might hurt. As they get older, they need to be taught that they are not always right, that when they do wrong, they need to apologise and take responsibility for their actions. And they need to see this way of being modelled by their parents.

It's a long, hard battle with every child, and sadly, many never make it to true adulthood, which is not really tested until that person becomes a parent. At that point, some will realise that their sole purpose in life is not just self-gratification. Expectations from society do play a part, but on the whole it comes down to character and what was taught by parents. If parents don't teach their children by word and example and don't know how to counter all the false messaging from society and the media, then it's hit and miss as to whether their children will ever grow up.

Getting to my final point - how do you tell if a person has really reached adulthood? Simple, my standard is that they know it's not all about them.  And from my reading of the Voice For Men website, that's not the position they appear take.

UPDATE ( 16 Jan 2012, 9:43am)
* This was a mistake.  I started off writing this post after thinking of the phrase, "Women need to grow up", as a concept.  It was put into the post very early on.  It took me a while to find the article that I thought it was from.  Writing this post, I altered it very drastically a number of times, trying to make it less attacking and more charitable, over a couple of days.  I do remember looking at the phrase, thinking about how to make it not look like a quote, but then I forgot when I posted it.  I'm going to leave the phrase in there using the strike out, just so it can be seen what people have been reacting to when criticising this post.

31 comment(s):

jonno1 said...

To be honest I couldn't be bothered reading the links to the original posts (TL;DR), but your description of what it means to be grown-up is spot on Lucia! Putting it another way: love God, and love your neighbour as yourself (now why does that sound familiar?).

Unknown said...

This is a childish post. A Voice for Men and other sites like it exist because women in today's society behave like spoiled children. When women are held to an equal standard as men, with full accoutnability and equal treatment under the law and in the culture, those sites will disappear. Pretending they exist for any primary reason soley because they don't agree with the rotten apple munchings you've regurgitated here is foolish.

You're living in the past. Everyone knows the feminist narrative that sought to empower women and shame men is over and done with - nobody's listening to it any more. You should probably find something more productive to write about, like how women can use all that feminine 'power' for the proper care and governance of all citizens. That would be something worth reading.

Lucia Maria said...

Unknown,

Not a regular reader, then?

Ok, then. Tell me why the post is childish. You're very good at the ad hominems (rotten apple munchings), but you'll have to be better than that to make a valid criticism. Otherwise I may end up treating you as a troll.

Bringing up historical positions is not living in the past - it's instead a way of giving the present some context. In other words, how did we get here? History tells us who we are. The present does not exist in a vacuum.

Adrian said...

First of all, I think it’s very bad form and appalling manners to pretend to be quoting somebody whilst really only giving your interpretation of their words. It’s also pretty patronizing to your readers as it denies them the possibility to make their own interpretation.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with your historical excursion or why you even go into it. Activists like AVFM are concerned with the current state of affairs and the future. The only time they reference history (from what I’ve read) is to illustrate a pattern (such as that of male disposability – which they have demonstrated very clearly).

“Men obviously don't go out to fight in wars because women are poking them with knitting needles, they go out to fight because they love us and their families and will do what it takes to protect us and what they value.”

This is a terrible thing to write. First you take what’s obviously a metaphor and use it as if it were literal. Then you go on to declare knowledge of what makes men go out and sacrifice themselves in war. This is like saying “people become janitors because they are so hygienically minded” – only far more sinister. Have you fought at any front yet? Until you have, don’t pretend to know or understand those who do. You cannot possibly know that they are not somehow pressured into it. Quite the opposite actually as most of the wars in history relied on forcing men into battle via conscription. Even today many countries implement it. Just declaring that they are doing it out of love whilst in full knowledge that you will never be called for front line duty against your choice is a perfect example of female privilege. And not even realizing that is an example for lack of maturity.

“A grown up is a person who does not put their needs, wants and desires first.”

If you do not take care of your own needs, you are slowly forcing others to take care of them for you. You do not help people close to you by taking the self sacrificial approach. It’s a form of selfishness by itself. A responsible adult is no help to others if they cannot even take care of their own needs. It’s a fast and sure way to becoming a burden rather than a help. Sure one must qualify this by differentiating needs from desires and prioritizing (for example, my desire for chocolate comes second to somebody else’s need for penicillin). But you’re not doing that. Following your pattern of assuming total stupidity in your readers, you just declare that all needs and desires of somebody else should come first (i.e. somebody else’s need for chocolate comes before my need for penicillin). It’s as false as it is absurd. If you don’t agree, then lead by example and live off the bare minimum enough to keep you alive and give everything else away. Put your money where your mouth is.

Paul said...

Gotta say, all this stuff about men going off to die in war because they love women HAS to have been written by a woman.

As a veteran of the armed forces let me tell you why men go off to war and die. From their own standpoint it is usually poverty that puts them in the military in the first place. Its about life with fewer options for the poor of our culture, especially poor men.

From the standpoint of power they go off to both kill and die because a consumer culture driven by female consumerism demands their blood when we are co-opting resources overseas.

You understand exactly nothing about war, why they happen and why men die in them because you never had to serve in one yourself.

That exemption, based on your sex and station, affords you the very questionable luxury of romanticising all the blood and death and pain to the love of women and famlies.

You understand even less about the men's movement. With all respect you should contain your writing to things you actually know about.

KG said...

Men go to war for all sorts of reasons and to offer a single, simple explanation is to ignore the complex web of human emotions and motives.
In my case, it was because I was raised as a military brat in a family that had been military as far back as I can trace, certainly for hundreds of years. Fighting was simply what we did, a tradition which was regarded as honourable and part of becoming a man.
Patriotism played no part in my wars, because I wasn't fighting for my own country, simply two countries which I had historical ties to and an affinity with.
Young men fight. As Hemingway said, (paraphrased) that once a man has tasted the salt of war, all that follows is like a meal without salt. The comradeship, the fear and hardships, the challenge to do the job well, the sheer exhilaration of dangers faced and overcome can never be adequately described.
It's a realm that very, very few women have experienced and they are therefore utterly unqualified to judge. I'd suggest too that male comradeship is so far beyond the ken of women that for them to comment on it is at least grossly presumptuous.
Men seldom go to war (at least in recent history) for the reason you claim, Lucia Maria. The reasons are more complex and sometimes far more mundane than that, as a couple of other commenters have pointed out.
Much as I respect you, I believe you know very little about what motivates and inspires men.

Adi said...

@Paul,
exactly. Imagine a man saying something like "prostitutes are doing what they do entirely because they want to take care of men's sexual demands - even those who are forced into it".

I was going to add a line on how ignorant and hateful that is but any adult with a shred of compassion can see that for themselves.

Lucia Maria said...

It's actually bedtime for me, so I'll have to address all the points and criticisms tomorrow, however I do have one question for the fighting men on this thread.

Were any of you in WWII?

Dr Greg Canning said...

Were any of you in WWII?

No but my dad, his 2 brothers and uncle were, you can read a bit about him here

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/anzac-day/

perhaps you should read the article quoted in that piece as well, and research the feminist disrespect for our ANZACs

Chris Key said...

“A grown up is a person who does not put their needs, wants and desires first. They are more interested in looking after those they are responsible for than looking after themselves, even to self-sacrifice. In short, they die to themselves so that others might live.”

Are you admitting that pro-choicers and women who’ve had an abortion are selfish and irresponsible children who need to grow up?

Lucia Maria said...

Chris Key,

"Are you admitting that pro-choicers and women who’ve had an abortion are selfish and irresponsible children who need to grow up?"

Interesting choice of words especially given that I am not a pro-choicer.

I think that any one who thinks an abortion undoes a pregnancy as if that pregnancy never happened is deluded or ignorant.

I wouldn't want to categorise all women who have had abortions, because there are many who realise what they've done after the fact, but there is nothing they can do to change that.

I think having an abortion to solve a problem could be considered childish and selfish. Or just plain evil.

Lucia Maria said...

Dr Greg,

Hi. Had a read of the article you directed me to. Personally, I think it's incredibly disrespectful for any group to hijack a memorial for the dead for their own purposes, no matter how noble those may seem to them.

I asked about WWII because that was the last major war that "we" (I say "we" loosely here) were involved in that most people recognised as a clear and present danger to their way of life. Therefore those who are not normally attracted to the soldierly life came forward to defend.

I'm now living in a country was not invaded during this time, so was somewhat removed from the very real danger was present, but both my parents are from Poland, as you know, that was an environment where you couldn't sit around thinking about whether or not it was necessary to enlist - the tanks were rolling in.

Since I read your link, please do me the favour of reading mine: Old newsreel on Poles finding refuge in Iran and more on my father's story in this post on Motherhood and Conservatism.

ProNoob said...

Maria, men can't be shamed back into line. Do you think you are the only one trying?

The situation really is not that simple to understand; after several decades of feminist governance the men of the West are demoralized. Faced with a culture that undermines, belittles and abuses them at every turn they have reverted to a natural state of self-interest. Men do not owe 'society' any loyalty or service, they do not owe women any consideration whatsoever. The natural activity of a man is to look after himself and his own interests. Countries are required to inspire loyalty in their men, they are not owed it unconditionally, women are required to inspire sacrifice from men, they are not owed it. If you are failing in your job to inspire men to do more than just look out for themselves (as is their absolute, uncontestable right) then perhaps you should ask yourself what it is you are doing wrong, not men.

Truth said...

I appreciated the comments a lot more than the article.

I also disagree with the reason for men fighting in wars, but I also think it's a red herring for Lucia's lack of understanding on all of the other issues facing men in modern times that are related to the disposability of men.

Essentially we have a system that legally enforces men's traditional gender roles and responsibilities for women and children but gives women the option to relinquish any responsibility for themselves, their children and men. The old social contract is broken and men know it. Even honest conservative men are acknowledging this and conservative women are panicking because their market value is dropping rapidly under the new deal.

Lucia Maria said...

Paul,

"Gotta say, all this stuff about men going off to die in war because they love women HAS to have been written by a woman.

A woman and a Pole, because that is why the men in my life went to war. They weren't professional soldiers - they were family men (my grandfather) and sons (my uncles) who were spat out by the Soviet system after it killed their wife/mother and younger children/siblings. So, it was from that perspective that I was writing.

Many people that normally read this blog know that, so I suppose I have become a little lazy in making sweeping generalisations. I'll remedy that in the future.

Lucia Maria said...

Truth,

The old social contract is broken and men know it.

I know it as well.

You guys are thinking that you are left with burdens that women can walk away from and the feminists think pretty much the same thing, resulting in a war between the sexes which is basically pointless.

Oswald Bastable said...

The WHY?

For me, I never quite got to war- came a gnat's whisker from being there, which is a bit of a story in itself.

I did, however, put myself forward with my eyes wide open and for the reason (as I suspect was the case with many other) because I needed to know if I was up to it.

Could I do what men throughout history had done?

Which is also a big part of why I have taken on a couple of jobs, over the years, that are far from easy.
Now I KNOW I can do stuff most run from. I know I won't fail when faced with adversity that tests a man. or at least- I won't fail to try- doing my best and hoping it is enough.

jonw said...

I was listening to a Christian music station the other day and a lady was organizing a fund raiser to fight some form of cancer( I don't recall which ). She finished her plea by saying," 80% of the victims are WOMEN " That was her motivation to action. If 80% of the deaths were men,oh well,no big deal.
Christians churches have become almost pathological with their male bashing which is why male attendance has been in consistent decline.
Genesis says God made man in his own image.This gives men intrisic value.
When christians and traditionalists start treating men as human beings men will begin to become more engaged.

ZenTiger said...

My two cents worth:

I am a man, so my opinion counts

Chris Key said...

"I wouldn't want to categorise all women who have had abortions, because there are many who realise what they've done after the fact, but there is nothing they can do to change that."

There is no greater power imbalance than the one between a pregnant woman and her unborn child. The latter is completely dependent upon the former. When a woman terminates a pregnancy for selfish reasons (IE. not wanting a child to interfere with her hedonistic lifestyle) then she's proving to the world that she's an evil, selfish, unmarriageable savage.

So I have to disagree with your claim that nothing can be done. Something can be done. The evil woman who placed hedonism over another being's life should either be sterilised or thrown out to sea. If a woman is going take life away then she ought have her ability to procreate taken from her. There's no place for abortionists in a sane, civilised society.

Chris Key said...

"You guys are thinking that you are left with burdens that women can walk away from and the feminists think pretty much the same thing, resulting in a war between the sexes which is basically pointless."

Sorry Maria, but if you're trying to say that women don't have options that aren't available to men then you live in a fantasy world.

ZenTiger said...

Hi Chris. I liked your point about the power imbalance.

I think Lucia meant nothing can be done to reverse that particular choice - the life is terminated irrespective of what any-one decides to do about it later.

Women terminate their pregnancies for all sorts of reasons, and those reasons don't necessarily make them evil, even if the act is seen as intrinsically evil.

Extracting an "eye for an eye" punishment is not a path I'd like to go down, personally.

I'd prefer to create a society that understood and valued life from conception, rather than spend my time wondering if one particular act was through ignorance, fear, confusion, culture, convenience or evil. Such a society would have to offer a lot more to mothers than it does now I think. We have work to do.

ZenTiger said...

Sorry Maria, but if you're trying to say that women don't have options that aren't available to men then you live in a fantasy world.

Men's options, women's options...who has a bigger right...

Tell me, what options do the children have? Since you see the power imbalance in a pregnancy, what happens when mum or dad decides to walk out on the kids?

The kids get how much of a say? They get argued about as pieces of property. They get time shares allocated. They get told they have to choose between parents. They get told they have to accept new parents.


What if a kid said "I think my parents need to figure out how to honour their commitments to each other, revisit the "think and thin" and "unto death do us part" stuff."

What if a kid said "actually, I don't want you guys to split up"

Chris Key said...

ZenTiger,

I don't believe in no-fault divorce. If mummy and daddy wish to split up then they should be told to stay together until their kid(s) is 18. The only time to split the parents up is when one of them is violent and recklessly dangerous.

ProNoob said...

Chris, it does my heart proud to see a man of conviction stand against the abomination of abortion without mincing his words. So many anti-abortion people balk at placing moral responsibility for the murder of the unborn child where it belongs; on the woman. Most prefer to blame the hitman.

Anyway, you were right when you said; ''Sorry Maria, but if you're trying to say that women don't have options that aren't available to men then you live in a fantasy world.''


Maria belives in and is implying equality between us and the feminists, as if we've jointly ruined society with our petulant little war. This is how she sees it, us and the feminists jointly and equally responsible for the current gender war with her and her social conservative allies the voice of reason in the middle desperately trying to restore sanity. You'll not convince her off this position, don't even try, she is still a woman after all.

ZenTiger said...

I'd just like to go on record that I'm not "desperately trying to restore sanity" between radical feminists and the people that say things like: "don't even try, she is still a women after all"

I have no time to spend on lost causes.

ProNoob said...

''I have no time to spend on lost causes.''

The irony of a social conservative saying this is lost on you I imagine? A great shame, I got a good laugh out of that.

Lucia Maria said...

Either everything will fall apart and civilisation will revert to barbarism, or social conservatism will come back.

I know what I'm betting on.

ProNoob said...

''Either everything will fall apart and civilisation will revert to barbarism, or social conservatism will come back.''

The first one, followed by the second one.

The kinds of diseases afflicting our society have no cure, they have never been cured in history. Rome always has to fall, it cannot be salvaged.

Chris Key said...

Hi ProNoob,

You're right about what needs to be done and what will happen.

Women won't grow up until nature forces them to do so. Men won't force women to grow up because they're afraid it'll have a negative effect on their sex lives. Only mother nature has the capacity to force women to stop parasitising men.

The only thing we can do is ensure that women do not take us for a ride. The problem is there are still a lot of men out there who enable bad female behaviour.

BeijaFlor said...

Lucia Maria said... (2:51 PM, January 17, 2012)
Either everything will fall apart and civilisation will revert to barbarism, or social conservatism will come back.

I know what I'm betting on.

I can only judge for myself what you might be betting on. I will say that there is one option that you ought to be PRAYING for.

To quote one of the Founders of my own country, Thomas Jefferson:

" Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.