5 Reasons Men Are Obsolete, According to Hanna Rosin

Now Time.com posts Hanna Rosin’s speech (from the Munk Debate in Toronto) to counter Camille Paglia’s.

How do I know men are finished? I’ll read you a quote that says it all: “Yes. There have been times when I’ve been in a drunken stupor.” Toronto’s mayor, a shining example of modern manhood is what I would call the canary in the coal mine, only he’s not quite as delicate as the canary. Because, you know, He’s got “more than enough to eat at home.”

Are men literally obsolete? Of course not, and if we had to prove that we could never win. For one thing, we haven’t figured out a way to harvest sperm without them being, you know, alive. But in order to win this debate we have to prove that men, quote unquote, as we’ve historically come to define them — entitled to power, destined for leadership, arrogant, confused by anything that isn’t them. As in: “I don’t understand. Is it a guy dressed up like a girl? Or a girl dressed up like a guy?” They are obsolete.

Once upon a time, the men ventured out to hunt bison while the women stayed behind to dust the cave, gather berries and raise the very hairy children. This is the story we have told ourselves for tens of thousands of years to explain why men rule the world while women are relegated to being the second sex, (“physiologically unsuited for leadership” is how the current Australian prime minister put it). Now after more than a century of global economic revolutions and a few decades of recession it’s become obvious that this story is no longer true, if it ever was. Here are the reasons:

ONE: It’s the end of men because men are failing in the workplace.

Over the last few decades men’s incomes have been slowly declining and women’s have been rising. Last year one in five men were not working, something economists call the biggest social crisis we will face. Party this is because the economy is changing quickly, but men aren’t. As the manufacturing economy gets replaced by a service and information economy, men are failing to adjust or get the skill they need to succeed.

Meanwhile, women are moving in the opposite direction: In 2009 they became the majority of the American workforce for the first time ever. Now in every part of America young single women under 30 have a higher median income than young men, which is really important because that’s the phase of life when people imagine what their future will look like. As one sorority girl put it to me — remember, I said sorority, not someone from the women’s study center — “Men are the new ball and chain.”

It’s the end of men because men are failing in schools and women are succeeding. In nearly every country, on all but one continent, women are getting 60 percent of college degrees, which is what you need to succeed these days. Many boys start falling behind as early as first grade, and they fail to catch up. Many men, meanwhile, still see school as a waste of time, a girl thing.

Click here to read the rest of this horrid article.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to 5 Reasons Men Are Obsolete, According to Hanna Rosin

  1. Alice Zents says:

    Grasping at straws. Paglia’s diagnostics and wit must have overwhelmed Rosin.

  2. That such ignorance gets any column-inches says much about Time.

  3. Mike says:

    I think this article is great, merely for the fact that it provides an honest and true insight into the nature of the feminist heart (or lack thereof).

  4. Mike says:

    Wow, take a look at these excerpts.. one HELL of a resume right here –

    In 2009 she was nominated for a National Magazine Award for “Boy’s Life,” a story about a young transgender boy. In 2010 she won the award for her contribution to a package of stories in New York magazine about circumcision.[11] Her stories have also been included in anthologies of Best American Magazine Writing 2009 and Best American Crime Reporting 2009.

    On February 27, 2012, following the death of children’s author Jan Berenstain, Rosin wrote an article critical of the Berenstain Bears series of books and said “good riddance” to the beloved children’s author. After negative public reaction to her use of the phrase “good riddance,” Rosin issued an apology.[12]

    • Dwayne says:

      Mike, I wouldn’t be surprised if Hanna Rosin had the same sentiments about Stan Berenstain when he preceeded his wife in death, the difference being she would likely NOT take it back if she ever said that about a man when he passed away.

  5. Larry J says:

    Without men, those feminists would die cold and hungry in the dark. Who mines the coal and drills for the natural gas that provides most of our electricity? Who operates the powerplants and repairs the power lines? Who does the majority of the work in raising our food and getting it processed and delivered to grocery stores for our consumption? It isn’t that women can’t do these jobs. It’s the fact that very few of them do those jobs, not nearly enough to keep the country going.

    That author comes across as one of those people who believe food comes from grocery stores and restaurants and that the utilities we depend on will always be there at the flick of a switch or opening of a valve. In other words, she’s an elitist idiot.

    • Lila Smence says:

      The authors point was not that we should get rid of men. If you read the second paragraph, she explains that by “men” she is talking not about men literally, but our traditional definition of what it means to be male. Thus, she is talking more about patriarchy than men themselves.

      Our economy could not be supported without both men and women in the workforce. I’m not sure if Rosin realizes this, but I also see no reason to believe she doesn’t. So, I don’t think we can argue either her ignorance or her knowledge on this particular issue.

  6. Mark Trueblood says:

    “Where have all the ‘good men’ gone?”

    “You told us you didn’t need us so we went on with our lives.”

    • Lila Smence says:

      “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

      I think it’s good that women are no longer financially and socially dependent on men. I think it’s good that women can be more independent these days.

      A good relationship is not about need. It’s about value. I don’t need by boyfriend. I was single for almost two decades before meeting him and did just fine, however, I do value his presence in my life. He contributes greatly to it🙂 I personally think highly valuing each other is far better than dependency.

      • Mark Trueblood says:

        Not sure anything I said is advocating dependency. I believe in women’s ability to be self reliant more than many of them do.

      • Doug Spoonwood says:

        Women aren’t socially dependent on men????

        Who got the metal out of the Earth to build your car? Who smelted the metal and worked in the factories to build your car?

        Who worked in the plastic factories for your keyboard and grocery bags? Who built and maintained the electrical networks so you can see inside and use your computer? Who built the software which helps power this website? Who chopped down the trees for paper bags or writing paper?

        Who built the building that you’re in right now? Who installed the heating system Who shipped materials via trucks so that you could get food at a supermarket, or a restaurant? Sure, some women did some of those jobs, but a lot of those jobs got down by men.

        As feminist Camile Pagila said in the other article
        “It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.”

      • De2nis says:

        If you don’t “need” a man, then stop suing us for child support and welfare.

        Women need men, but they’ve reduced us to farm animals to harvest semen and cash from, all while calling us privileged and saying society keeps THEM down.

  7. The United States of Disparate Impact

    I tried to pay my employees in gold but that was prohibited.

    I wanted to get a loan but the government said they didnt have any money because they had already given out too many bad loans to historically disadvantaged groups.

    I made more than the median income but I was not able to keep all that much because I live in the same house with the woman I sleep with and live as a family with our children together.

    I was going to help a woman and train her at my business because I thought she needed help but the AAUW said I have to pay her equal pay for equal work. I knew she wouldnt be able to pay her what the AAUW thought was equal right away at least until she was proficient but the AAUW and I couldnt agree on the definition of equal work so I didnt hire her.

    I was too costly to give my employees health insurance because of government mandates so I didnt do it.

    I ended up losing my business to my competitors because the government bailed them out and not me.
    My wife left me and I lost my life savings paying child support despite the fact that she cheated on me. I had to move back in with my parents.

    I met a young women on public transportation. I like dating her despite the fact that she had 3 kids by 3 different men before the age of 21. I think I am going to stay with her until she gets her 9k earned income credit check in February. I dont know if our relationship will last much longer than that, but her mom might be able to get me a job in the Obama Administration investigating companies that use IQ tests improperly. If they are caught they are subject to fines that go towards subsidizing bad loans for historically disadvantaged groups.

  8. Doug Spoonwood says:

    “For one thing, we haven’t figured out a way to harvest sperm without them being, you know, alive.”

    Sounds like a promotion of population reduction to me. Could this be a form of genocide apologia?

    “We have a new global type, for example, called the alpha wife, a woman who makes more money than her husband or boyfriend.”

    So, I generally feel inclined to dismiss all those conjectures about alpha and beta males. But, now she’s talking about alpha females. Maybe all that stuff about alpha, betas, sigmas, gammas, and zetas makes sense.

    “Obsolete does not mean worthless. It means outmoded. The twin combustion engine made the bicycle obsolete but that doesn’t mean we hate the bicycle. We just use it the way we want to, while recognizing the necessity of efficiency and change. We don’t have to turn men into eunuchs. We can keep whatever we like about manhood but adjust the parts of the definition that are keeping men back.”

    Who’s objectifying who now?

    “He can be his own lovely obnoxious self and also be at home in a new world.”

    Gee, what a compliment. Could Hanna Rosin’s toward her own son end up encouraging misogyny?

  9. Dwayne says:

    If Hanna Rosin has her way, men will have to submit to their wives(she’d love nothing less than a female Archie Bunker telling her husband, “Get dinner on the table”). She’s probably the very type of female that more than loves the fact that California(I live in Los Angeles) REQUIRES employers to allow females to wear pants to work(which means an employer in my state can regulate male dress until nothing is left to regulate, but females can be all but given carte blanch at work when it comes to dress). Needless to say, one woman Miss Rosin might loathe to death is “Dressing with Dignity” author Colleen Hammond, who has said not long after the birth of her first child, she came across a study in the library done in the 1970’s the advertising industry did on male reaction to females in pants; as much as many females base how they dress on keeping unwanted male attention at bay, this is a disturbingly well-kept secret that more people need to know about; the results were as follows; they found that when a male looks at a female in pants(whether he does so from front or back), his eyes go where they ought not, and yet these anti-male feminists push masculine dress on females! Not only that, I’ve noticed that before feminism had its iron-clad grip on our world, females were treated with MORE respect than they are now, not less! By the way, people can check out iit.ches.ua.edu/systems/gestalt.html for information that backs up the study on male reaction to females in pants.

    • Lila Smence says:

      I don’t think men should have to submit to their wives just like I don’t think wives should have to submit to their husbands. I also don’t think that was Rosin’s point (I explain Rosin’s thesis in another comment since so few people seem to have high enough reading comprehension to get it).

      Also, is putting dinner on the table an insulting or shameful thing to you? I thought that Suzanne Venker’s (who I assume you agree with) entire philosophy was that it should be okay for women to be housewives just as much as it should be okay for women to work as lawyers, doctors, politicians, electricians, engineers, and CEOs (which I completely agree with!). So why shouldn’t the same be true for men?

      Also, women are allowed to wear both dresses/skirts and pants to work because people (feminists) pushed for that. If you want men to have the freedom to wear both pants and dresses/skirts to work (or if you have another freedom in mind), push for it. Other people might stand behind you, and you might be able to make a change.

      Also, sure, in pants I men might look at my rear-side or crotch more, but pants are more comfortable, and I don’t have to sit with my legs crossed, therefore, I continue to wear them. I, like many women, dress for my own comfort more than male reactions.

      What proof do you have that women were treated with more respect before feminism than now (and which feminist movement are we starting at: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd wave)? I would say it’s a mixed bag. In some areas, women are more respected, in some I can see less. I’m just curious about your answer.

      Anti-male feminists do not honestly and accurately represent feminism as a whole. They receive the most coverage because they are the extremists. It’s the same with most political/social movements and groups. Feminists in general hate patriarchy (a power structure), not men.

      • De2nis says:

        Feminists only claim to hate patriarchy. But they are the first one’s to tell men to “man up” and adapt when life isn’t going their way (as this article demonstrates), while screeching for protection and provision for those poor little delicate flowers we call women when they are down. Feminism and “patriarchy” are two peas in a pod.

      • Doug Spoonwood says:

        The President is a feminist, the Vice President is a feminist, there’s feminists all throughout the legal system, and feminists all over the White House. The distinction between feminism and patriarchy has collapsed. As one shirt says “feminism is patriarchy in lipstick”.

        It doesn’t really matter if anti-male feminists represent feminism as a whole. There’s existed a proposal for a National Council for Men and Boys for a few years now http://whitehouseboysmen.org/blog/ The most politically influential feminists either are anti-male or at the very least marginalize male interests and needs. Hence sites like this to try and change the culture.

      • Lila Smence says:

        The article was referring to our definition of what it means to be male and the death of patriarchy. It was saying that our ideals of masculinity need to change so that men are given the tools and the room to adapt to a changing world. Thus, the article isn’t really telling men to “man up.” It’s telling us to change our ideals and institutions so that boys and men can be more successful.
        As a feminist, I do in fact hate patriarchy, I NEVER tell a man to “man up,” and I happen to love the men in my life. Most of my friends are actually men. There are also many feminist authors, such as Jessica Valenti, who are happily married to men (so obviously she doesn’t hate men).
        Women need protection because women are systematically disempowered. On an economic level, women are still paid about 20% less than men, products and services for marketed towards women cost more than THE SAME products and services for men. Women have a higher poverty rate than men. Women are raped and physically abused much more than men (you can argue that men don’t report the crime but neither do a large percentage of women). I could go on.
        My point is that we still live in a world where women need to be protected from things done to them simply because they are women. Are their laws that are unfair towards men? Oh yeah. Many feminists would agree with that. Those laws were created due to circumstances that may no longer be the case. Many feminists are in favor of equalizing them.

      • De2nis says:

        Uh, you’re wrong Lila. Men are 3 to 4 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than women, and men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than your beautiful, delicate female self according to the latest CDC statistics. Only the breadwinner/home-maker dynamic causes women to be paid less than men, because childless women under 30 make 8% MORE than men. The article even mentions this. And this is despite the sexual pressure women put on us to be high status and wealthy. Women spit on us when we don’t earn more than them, and call us oppressors when we do.

        Women have a higher poverty rate because they have far more reproductive agency and thus are more likely to have children in their custody (the poverty measurement scales to family size). Men face twice the risk of homelessness as women.

      • Doug Spoonwood says:

        “Women need protection because women are systematically disempowered.”

        Part of the traditional male role involves protecting women and can definitely be the right thing to do. However, by calling for women’s protection as you just did, you told men to “man up”.

        “On an economic level, women are still paid about 20% less than men, products and services for marketed towards women cost more than THE SAME products and services for men.”

        With respect to the first part, the principle here involves at least equal pay *for equal work*. By and large women and men don’t do the same work. There’s also slews of factors involved in the pay differential by sex (I suggest Warren Farrell’s Why Men Earn More on this topic), but of particular note something like 92% of deaths and a significant majority of workplace injures happen to men while at work http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf. How do you factor such in when talking about “the pay gap”?

        Also, I’ll point out that there do exist to seem cases where men and women do the same work and take an equal amount of risk, but get paid differently. An example is modeling, where male models get paid less than female models.

        What’s your source for the second part? Which products?

        “Women have a higher poverty rate than men.”

        Men make up the majority of the homeless or perhaps better as Glen Poole says “rough sleepers”. I’ve seen 60%, 75%, and even 90% for the estimate here, but whatever the actual statistic it seems clear that men make up the majority of rough sleepers.

        “Women are raped and physically abused much more than men (you can argue that men don’t report the crime but neither do a large percentage of women).”

        It’s hard to tell how big of a difference in rape there is when we don’t have studies which include penile envelopment as a form of rape. Also, do the statistics apply to civil society only, or do they include the prison population also?

        You were arguing for women needing protection. But, men suffer from the majority of violence in the world (I’ll suggest David Benatar’s The Second Sexism here). So, really, both sexes need protection.

  10. De2nis says:

    She even blames first grade “men” for not being able to adapt to a changing world. What a black hearted bitch.

    • Lila Smence says:

      Where? Support your claim with the text.

      She is talking about our changing system (patriarchy is dying; that is what she means by “men are obsolete”–read the second paragraph where she explains that), and how men, as well as our systems and institutions, have yet to adjust to these changes.

      • De2nis says:

        “It’s the end of men because men are failing in schools and women are succeeding. In nearly every country, on all but one continent, women are getting 60 percent of college degrees, which is what you need to succeed these days. Many boys start falling behind as early as first grade, and they fail to catch up. Many men, meanwhile, still see school as a waste of time, a girl thing.”

        She’s celebrating first grade boys struggling in school. Disgusting.

      • women are getting 60 percent of college degrees, which is what you need to succeed these days.

        Wrong – and in fact, with the inflated cost of a degree these days, they can be a high-speed highway to a lifetime of debt, singleness, and destitution.

      • Lila Smence says:

        If you read the second paragraph, she explains that she is not talking about men literally, but our traditional definition of what it means to be male.
        Did you read the end of the article? She’s not celebrating any of this. She talks about how she wants to help her son adapt to the world as it is and succeed.
        Boys’ issues in school are not their fault. It’s an entire social problem. She is discussing that.

      • De2nis says:

        Yeah, “adapt” by shutting up and manning up. Why couldn’t women simply “adapt” to make it in the world? Why did they need feminism?

  11. Lila Smence says:

    HAHAHA! This article bothers me due to historical inaccuracies (She inaccurately describes paleolithic life as patriarchal and also declares that men held power far longer than they actually have) and a poorly explained point, but at least I got the point of it.

    People, she is NOT saying that we should get rid of men, or that men are useless (first line, third to last paragraph). She is not even really saying that men, in a literal sense, are actually gone or leaving (second paragraph). She is saying that our traditional definition of what it means to be male is disappearing just as our traditional notion of what it means to be female is disappearing. So, really, her article is about patriarchy disappearing.

    That is the first part of her thesis: the power structure that we have lived in since the emergence of tributary societies–patriarchy–is changing and dissolving.

    Read the second part of her thesis: “We can keep whatever we like about manhood but adjust the parts of the definition that are keeping men back.” Now, I think the wording is poor and borderline offensive, but this is her point: She doesn’t want men to disappear, she doesn’t want men to fall or to change completely into women (as many of you fear feminism is trying to do). “We can keep whatever we like about manhood”. However, the world is changing, and therefore people, including men need to change with it. We can “adjust the parts of the definition that are keeping men back”. This does not mean “womanizing” men, it means making school something that is also a boy thing. Basically it means that men become adaptable to new roles, so our definition of masculinity needs to change in order to fit these roles.

    Rosin WANTS men to succeed too. What do you think the part about her son was about?

    • The missing piece, Lila, is how. HOW should masculinity change? Those are the specifics Rosin omits from her diatribes. That’s where the real controversy lies. It is also fallacious to say, as she has, that women are adapting to a “new world” and men are not—as though men are somehow lacking. There’s an entirely diff way to frame this discussion, one that doesn’t portray women as superior to men or suggest men used to hold women back en masse, which they did not.

      • Lila Smence says:

        Yes! I completely agree! These are some of the biggest issues our society faces today. How should we change our definitions of masculinity, femininity, and male and female empowerment? And how do we create gender equality for both men and women? And there aren’t easy solutions to these answers.

        As I said before, I think this article is poorly written. I think that it in places frames this discussion quite negatively, and I don’t think the support for her claim truly gets to the bottom of the problem and, therefore, she doesn’t state a solution clearly. As a feminist, I cringed. However, if we look at what the phrase “men are obsolete” as she defines it in the second paragraph, we see that she is not talking about men literally but our definitions of men and be extension patriarchy. Thus, when she says lagging behind, she is saying that our definitions and roles we give men are lagging behind a changing world. So, I don’t think she is completely saying men are inferior (though I can see places where she does seem to claim women’s superiority which I disagree with; gender doesn’t make someone superior). She is saying that we haven’t extended and adjusted our definition of manhood to fit social changes, thus men struggle. If you think about it, over the past few decades, we have extended the definitions and possibilities of womanhood and femininity from housewife, secretary, nurse, etc. to a whole range of professional possibilities. We’ve taken a lot of limitations off of women. We have not extended masculinity in the same way for men.

        That is the problem, so I would say the solution would be to extend the definition of manhood to other roles and possibilities. Our social institutions need to create more possibilities for manhood.

        I also would halfway agree that “men did not use to hold women back en masse.” The reason I say halfway is that men were/are certainly a part of it, but so were/are women. Men themselves do not cause sexism and misogyny, its our entire social system and power structure (patriarchy) which is supported by the thoughts, words, actions, and values of every member of our society, both men and women, that causes gender inequality. It is also important to note that gender inequality goes both ways. Men are victims of sexism too and are also held back (who is to say inhibiting women from being CEOs is any worse than discouraging men from being stay-at-home dads?). Sure men had and still have the majority of positions of political, religious, and social power, but women help give men that power, therefore, we in some ways cause our own victimization as much as men do. And couldn’t the same be true for men?

      • What’s completely missing from the discussion is WHY should men change. “Because women want it” does not suffice – men could say the same thing about women and they’d reject it out of hand – and rightly so.

        That our “traditional definitions” are alledged to be “disappearing” is begs the question – that this change been for the better. I’d say that – looking around contemporary society – the answer has to be a resounding “NO”.

      • Lila Smence says:

        Northern Observer,

        Again, if we look at the article, she is not literally talking about men but how we define manhood. Thus, it is this definition that must change. Men merely should be given a wider range of possibilities of what manhood can look like just like women were given a wider range of womanhood can look like.

        Letting go of traditional values has both benefits and negative backlash. Good vs. bad is pretty subjective though. We are in a period of adjustment. In some areas, the changes within gender roles looks great, in other areas, we need some work. You could argue almost any movement or historical event as both good and bad.

      • Lila – she said ‘men’ not ‘masculinity’. As someone who takes things at face value reading the writing of a presumed “adult” who’se profession is communicating, I naturally assumed she wrote what she meant, not something else that’s “less offensive”.

        Second, you still haven’t identified _why_ the “definition” of masculinity and/or femininity must change. Until you answer that question, there’s really no point in discussing “if” or “how” gender roles “should” change.

        Good vs. bad is pretty subjective though.

        Ah – people use such “subjective” forms of thinking to excuse all sorts of depravity because “it all depends.”

        It’s women like that’ve convinced men to go their own way and leave women who subscribe to such relativistic nonsense to their own devices.

        Enjoy your cats.

      • John says:

        Young men are reacting to this. They are not getting married, avoiding long term relationships and spending money on themselves. They are working less. Women are working more because they think they have to or need to because they have been told to distrust men.The great thing about being a man is you can avoid a feminist like Lila Smence. She might be a someone that you can rely on at work. But, young men are smarter and would avoid a women with very strong opinions. Yong men are adapting. Older men like me are starting to tell our sons. It will all come full circle.

      • Dwayne says:

        I’ve noticed the letters Lila Smence has written, and from what I’ve gathered, her response to people who don’t agree with her is “What proof do you have”(even if proof is beyond the shadow of a doubt), but this is exactly how the feminists love to conduct themselves. Simply put, their motto is, “If I don’t agree with what you say, prove it. If I DO agree with what you say, you have NOTHING to prove”.

    • De2nis says:

      She’s saying that when men fail its because they’re slug-brained simpletons who can’t adapt to change, but when women fail its because they are poor little victims of discrimination.

      So when women fail, it’s because they are discriminated against. When men fail, it’s because they suck. If that’s not female supremacy, nothing is.

      Feminism: The belief that men are equal to women, except when men are inferior.

    • De2nis says:

      Also, if she wants men to expand their roles, why does she celebrate women’s decision to not marry a man who lost his job because he would be “just another mouth to feed”? She spits on stay at home dad’s, clearly.

      Feminism = patriarchy – anything that benefits men.

      “Ladies first.”
      “Don’t hit girls.”
      “Men’s only worth is as protectors and providers.”
      “Men must be held accountable for women but not the other way around.”

  12. John says:

    More women are in the workforce today then ever because of an economy that lost a ton of jobs that are from industries that are mainly male dominated. Examples banking, construction and finance. The female dominated industries like education and healthcare did not see the same losses. Mostly because these industries are supported by government. The changes have more to do with politics then merit. You would think that people that say they want equality to be happy that women have more opportunity now then ever. Instead, feminists have to find fault with men. The change has to do with a government that rejects basic free market principles that created the richest country ever. Our government openly promotes the domestic violence and deadbeat dad propaganda that people that listen to Rosin agree with. Then spends large sums of money to try and fix the problem.

  13. If women are succeeding in the “new world,” while men are not, it’s only because the culture, the courts, academia, and the media promote women and discriminate against men. It’s as simple as that.

    Pseudo-feminists, like Lila above, just don’t get it. They want the advantages but not the responsibilities.

    Presumptive paternity was the deal killer for me when it came to marriage. There is no way I am going to agree to a fully binding legal contract whereby I am responsible for paying child support for another man’s bastard, because a woman couldn’t keep her skirt down or her panties up. That is just not ever going to happen. I do not agree to the terms and conditions of the contract, and there’s nothing to argue about beyond that. If that means I will never get married, so be it. I didn’t write the law. I simply refuse to agree to a contract that is exploitative in a court system that is discriminatory. Women don’t like it? I really don’t care. Either change the law or shut up.

    I know far too many men who have been married and divorced, married and divorced, married and divorced, some of whom are paying child support for children that are not theirs. And they’re all broke because of it. Where is the win here? I don’t see it. Why get married if you’re only going to get divorced? Divorce is expensive; it’s very expensive. You think a ring and a wedding ceremony cost money? Wait till you get to divorce court. We’re talking 50% of all income and assets here, a house, alimony, and child support, for what?

    The vast majority, well over 80%, of divorces are filed by women, usually within the first five years. There is no incentive for men to marry if the incentive for women is to divorce. Pseudo-feminists refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. The marriage contract is a license for betrayal, abandonment and bankruptcy. For men it’s a lose-lose proposition; for women it’s a win-win. As more and more men figure this out, and refuse to agree to it, more and more women will be left with nothing but their sterile ovaries and suck ass jobs.

    Oh, yeah, she’s intelligent. She’s educated. She’s employed. She earns a salary. She can buy her own house, where she can sit at home alone, play with her cat and complain about men. It’s the logical conclusion of pseudo-feminism.

    She’s very successful in the service industry. Great for her. But when her toilet overflows, her a/c shorts out, or her car breaks down on the side of the road, who’s she going to call? Ghost Busters? Please.

    The Suffragettes of the early 1900s had legitimate complaints. There is no reason why, in a civilized society, that women should not have the right to vote, equal education, equal opportunity, equal employment. No one is going to argue against that.

    But feminism, and worse pseudo-feminism, took it too far. It became misandry. Now they want all the advantages without any of the responsibilities. And they refuse to admit that the marriage contract is exploitative of men and that the court system is discriminatory against men. Of course not, that would be admitting the deck is stacked in their favor. And we certainly wouldn’t want to admit that. This is the Age of the Woman after all.

    My grandparents were married for 65 years, until my grandfater died. My parents were married for 45 years, until my father died. They had their ups and downs, but through it all they stuck together. They loved each other and raised their children. Where is that today? Nowhere to be found.

    He accepted his responsibility. She accepted her responsibility. Together, they made it work. That is no longer possible today.

    When my grandmother was diagnosed with tuberculosis, my grandfather went down to the bank where he was the manager and stole the money to pay for her operation. When he knew that she would live, he confessed and went to prison. That to me is love. She outlived him with half of one lung.

    This is what I’m talking about. Where is the incentive today for a man to commit a crime to save his wife’s life and go to prison for it? She must have been one hell of a woman, my grandmother, for him to make that kind of sacrifice for her. And she was.

    That’s the point. Do any of you guys know a girl that you’re willing to make that kind of a sacrifice for? I didn’t think so. The point is moot.

    Every day my grandmother would put on a dress, fix her makeup and hair, so that she could welcome her husband home. Show me a modern American girl who is to do that, and I’ll show you an anomoly.

    This is a female problem. They no longer respect men, because the culture, academia and the media, have taught them they no longer have to. And so when they need a man, someone who is willing to commit a crime and go to jail for it to save their lives, they don’t know where to look.

    “Where have all the good men gone?” The refrain goes. Um, in case you haven’t been paying attention, it’s somewhere you’re not.

    The modern American girl, i.e. the pseudo-feminist, isn’t worth the time of day. She certaily isn’t worth a prison sentence to save her life. And now she doesn’t like it. I look upon that as not my problem.

    I refuse to assume presumptive paternity for her. So marriage is out of the question. I live in a different era than my grandfather lived in. But I remain true to what it means to be a man. If she wants to come live with me, fine. I like sex. But she will respect my authority and abide by my decisions, or I’ll throw her sorry ass out. She can take bad attitude and sell it on the street for all I care. She can take all of that money she earns by selling her bad attitude on the street and use it to buy her own house. And, no, I am not about to go to prison to save her life; she has done nothing to prove that she is worth anything even remotely deserving that kind of sacrifice. That’s her problem, not mine.

    I would make that sacrifice if she were deserving of it, but since she’s not, I won’t. It’s as simple as that.

    • Dwayne says:

      That sums it up perfectly! Feminists want all of the “goodies”, but want to not be responsible for the bad feminism has to offer. They also want a different set of rules for male from female. For example, they want to be able to dress male(and, at times, deny it’s dressing male), but how dare anyone male do that for so much as halloween or “cross-dress day” at work or school. They want to be able to insult(and often unprovoked) males, but how dare a male ask a minor, even reasonable, favor of a female.

      • Jim & Cathy Cramer says:

        Brother Dwayne and others, we guys can complain ’till we’re blue faced, but it’ll do no good. Over 66 years on this planet I’ve learned that actions DO speak louder than words. “Suck it up”, or “Man Up”, or however it’s put now; I urge us all to simply be the men God created us to be, mate by marriage with one of the few sensible women remaining, and get on with living faithful lives. Ideological fanatics spent so much breath yelling at one another that they can do little else. Let’s fill in the gaps the breathless idiots leave. Pick up a Bible. Read how Godly men live. Follow their examples. Love one woman. Raise faithful, responsible, kids with her, so they are able to love with the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. It’s not easy! Some of your best friends now will sneer at you and call you “fool”. But, there are better friends and vastly greater rewards for people who know they’re evil within and repent to trust God’s mercy and help. Cathy and I do this daily and ride the wave of Grace every day, even through some pretty horrible times/troubles. She’s the one suffering a terrible dementia disease and still she says it better than I do. Her smiles, hugs, kisses and awkward sentences tell eloquently how Christ is her Savior and daily strength. She’s worth far more to me than 70 hot virgins. Ephesians 5:21Ff is not a recipe for woman’s subservience, but a call for men to love our woman like Christ loves His believers.
        And, Bro. Britt; I’ll check out that website…thanks. God bless you all!

  14. Jim & Cathy Cramer says:

    Over 41 years ago, my wife Cathy, and I agreed that Almighty God wanted us to serve Him together for life. Psalm 37.4 says, “take delight in the Lord and He will give you the desires of you heart”. We were certain that we desired to be with each other then and it’s been thus since. There were disagreements, then adjustments we had to make to keep faith with the Lord. We turned to God in prayer and study of His Word in Scripture, rather than turning against each other. Thus we received all the wisdom, strength, patience, hope, joy and love, among other gifts, to bless, rather than curse, each other.
    We have no children, a very modest income, many family and friends, a dog, and plenty of laughter between us to occupy each day. Cathy has moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and she says I’m suffering “male mental-pause”. I love her more than words can say, and she loves me just the same. We don’t understand the battle between the sexes, perhaps because we’ve been so long beside each other battling things which have come against us, that we never though to take out our anxieties on each other.
    In conclusion, I think that’s what God intended when he put us together at first….that we look out for each other and look up to Him for all we need. I don’t know if our account is helpful to anyone, but we offer it for what it’s worth. Many people stopped reading my works when they got to “Almighty God”. That’s O.K. He said they would. But for those who find hope in what we have, we offer it free with love, in Jesus Christ.


  15. Britt says:

    When i was in high school i always had problems with men, recently i came across this great site about men and women it helped a munch, check it out http://c8ea8ijy0yoc-r7ai5vx0reoc8.hop.clickbank.net/

  16. Fastidious answers in return of this issue with genuine arguments and explaining all on the topic off that.

  17. True Answer says:

    Well with so many Gay And Bi Women nowadays that would certainly explain it.

    • Jim & Cathy Cramer says:

      Toronto’s Mayor is a sad example facing a terrible illness, while trying to break out of slavery to alcohol and drugs. Men and women equally are beset with dependency on chemicals and horrible diseases. No gender has a monopoly on bad behavior either. I believe God can help those who will ask. Jesus gave His life for those who want to be saved from temporal bondage and eternal loss. Cathy and I have discovered that our Lord can, and does, perform great things with people who want and are willing to allow Him into their lives. Those who won’t accept His love seem to wander in search of a substitute, blaming everything/everyone except their own folly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s