WHY THIS CONTINUED WAR ON MEN: THE POLITICALLY-CONTRIVED “BATTLE OF THE SEXES” AND HOW IT GOES AGAINST NATURE.
After reading through another’s blog-post this morning, and getting very upset and emotional over its very present theme of “men this . . .”, “men that . . .”, and the plethora of other arguments on “how bad for men are . . .”, I decided to take on the risk of entering this battle myself. Seems to me that a lot of so-called “Nature-worshippers” and other “lovers of nature” have really missed the point of the Natural Laws concerning balance and the importance of the two polar, complimentary opposites that define the realm of Nature. Most dual-sex creatures in existence typify the balance of Nature in Biology, as well as in their social constructs. So, I hope to really shake things up and perhaps even (unintentionally) step on a few politically-correct toes on this one!
= = =
THE WAR ON MEN
The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
= = =
THE WAR ON MEN: 10 WAYS MASCULINITY IS UNDER ATTACK,
And why the elite – not women – are to blame
Men are facing a full frontal assault on their rights, health and culture like never before. The war on masculinity has never been so brutal – but it’s not a war being waged by women. The attack is coming directly from the top, as the establishment desperately attempts to emasculate and disempower men in order to force women to be more dependent on the state, thereby enabling more power to be centralized and aiding the growth of big government.
Here are ten ways in which the state has declared war on men and masculinity; . . .
= = =
Kathleen Parker: SEX AFTER DRINKING AND THE WAR ON MEN
We’ve heard much about the Republican war on women. Exhaustingly.
Lately, we’ve also heard about the war on men.
The war on men-on-women-on-men . . . or something, as MSNBC’s Alex Wagner described it recently, gained fresh traction with a controversial column by the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto about campus rape.
James, honey, meet Pandora.
In full disclosure, I wrote a book called “Save the Males,” so my understanding of these issues is not vague. The title notwithstanding, my bias is toward neither sex but toward yin and yang. My central point was that relations between the sexes do not constitute a zero-sum game, and our failure to recognize the differences between men and women undermines much of what makes us a civilized nation.
= = = ***
Just a few examples (and there surely would be many more if one chose to search) of the absolute silliness, lack of commonsense, and extreme pathological prejudice in the political-correctness thinking and double-speak that exists, all to make it look and sound like there “really is no problem here”, when, in fact, there IS a problem here! The Human species, by biology and definition, require TWO opposite sexes (often misnamed “genders”) in order for the species to be able to continue to survive. It literally takes TWO in order to further the existence of our species!
Nature did some very interesting things in order to differentiate the two sexes, some minor differences in certain species, but specifics to each sexes different characteristics nonetheless. One of these differences, is in the general psychological (or better yet, behavioral) make-up of the individuals. In many social species, the male members of the community were primarily the hunters and external protectors of the group. Their general psychology was more of the “strong-willed”, aggressive behaviors. The reasoning behind that was, that these characteristic traits are very important to the survival of the group. A certain amount of aggressive behavior is called for when it comes to the defense of one’s own home and family, as well as the drive, if one was of the hunter (predatory) species, to seek out for a kill that which will be used to feed the group/family. One who lacked the aggressiveness, needed to face the challenges one was sure to encounter in the natural world, would very soon perish and so could his family. Interesting that Lions seem to have a few of the roles a bit reversed like: The females, unless actively nursing cubs, would be the ones to go out and hunt for food.
One of the primary reasons why males were usually the ones who would battle each other over territory and mating rights, was simply that there often fewer males to females in a given population. This and also the ability of males to impregnate multiple females (in most but not all species) so as to insure the best chance of survival of the species. Females can usually only become pregnant once-at-a-time. She must carry her current pregnancy to completion (giving birth) before she is ready to mate again. The second, hopefully obvious, aspect is that the males usually have the more aggressive behavior necessary for successful combat. Nature also assures that the strongest (and/or “smartest”) males stand a better chance of winning any fight for territory and breeding rights as part of Nature’s intent on “breeding the best to the best”. This serves the function of both weeding out the weaker individuals, and passing on the best of genetics to the future of the species. (Darwin termed it, “Survival of the fittest”). However, it STILL called for healthy males being bred to healthy females. If the females lacked good health, there was a greater chance they would not be able to support bearing young, let alone having healthy young born.
On the other side of that equation,
The females served a very important purpose for evey group they were members of. Due to the fact that many such animal groups had far more females in them than males, they were vital to the “home defense”, especially when the males were away, whether for hunting and/or gathering of food; nesting material; and other needed necessities. They were the prime reason that the “family” was well-defended at home. They also often were responsible for the care and teaching of the young. They were considered to be more suited as care-takers and nurturers than as warriors, again: the Lion is seen a little differently in that the females could just as easily be “warrior-like”.
Human societies, in earlier times, paralleled this natural concept for many generations. What one should understand is that Nature made the determinations of the various roles for the sexes for good reason. Being that the men were built to be physically stronger and more endurance-oriented in their physiques, they were more adapted to the role of hunter/gatherer and performing other strenuous tasks as needed for survival. This also required a certain amount of aggressiveness and “energy” to sustain them in those persuits. The women were particularly unsuited for many of the more physically-demanding “chores” that most men did daily. The womens’ roles, instead, were more suited to the care-taking of children and tending to the home grounds, including any animals and other livestock they may have had at home. This may also be why some cultures had more women as healers than men: They were present in the villages most of the time in order to learn the healing arts.
What are missing, when it comes to the point of “Nature’s Balance”, in today’s society is that we have an obviously destructive political system that continues to encourage the waging of war between the two sexes, especially visible to us in much of the Western Hemisphere. We all heard the battle cries of “equal rights” and “equal opportunities”, but have we really accomplished all of this with benefit to EVERYONE? Some of us think, not so beneficial to all, but only to some and to the detriment to others in the same society. If things were truly “equal” in society, then there would be no further need for commentary and no further need for even more regulations and laws on the matter. (There would also be no need for any censorship either!) So what went wrong with us, today, that we have far more problems concerning the sexes and having trouble reconciling the inherent differences between the two?
One thing that makes most sense when explaining how political systems, and those who control them, benefit by exploiting the tactics of “divide and conquer” upon those they rule over. It is a very old tactic that is as old as the concept of empires in human history. In order for a tyrant to gain such a strong position in the control of other people’s lives, he (or she) must quietly create crises among the population, so that he (again, or she) has the opportunity to offer up a “solution” (that obviously benefits the controller(s) at the expense of the people and their cherished way of life). Most of the Eugenics (population-control fanatics) crowd have benefitted from the “sexual-revolution” in many ways, one of which is in pressuring the reduction in the human population and such supportive policies. It is obviously much harder to foster strong families and family values, as well as maintain them, if most members of the two sexes are busy arguing at each other on “who is right and who is wrong” all the time. (All by virtue of being born as one or the other sex.) This has had the net effect of reducing the number of viable, sustainable marriages (an important first step towards a strong, cohesive family) over the course of the last fifty, sixty, or so years. This also has had the net effect of reducing how many children were allowed to “be born” (the Eugenicists AND the arch-feminists have also aggressively pushed and supported abortion-on-demand to these ends).
Then, we have all kinds of advertisements, commercials, and television programs which consistently portray (all) men in negative stereotypes (in which these stereotypes, as by definition, lack any real basis in accuracy). If we all remember from, hopefully, our school lessons: “Steroetypes” are assumptions based on a limited sample of the population, and portraying the results as fact over the larger population. This is called Inductive Reasoning in scientific terms. Inductive reasoning is the least accurate way of making any assumption, and rendering those findings as final conclusions. Political thinking is most notorious for using the inductive reasoning model for rendering an opinion and/or conclusion, because it would take considerable time and effort to gather more data, information, and examining the samples taken in order to find a “trend”. Politics is a full-time (pre)occupation itself. Therefore, one would expect there would be little time and inadequate resources for those making the statements AND the “laws” to be able to come to more accurate conclusions. – That’s when we have the “experts” in the various social and “scientific” fields do the analysis and reporting.
The problem I have with these “experts” has more to do with their political (and even economic) ties. I think back to the old verse, “He who pays the piper, names the tune”. Most (if not virtually all) of these experts are paid for their opinions. Everyone has opinions, so WHY should these “experts’” opinions count anything heavier than yours and mine? Well, we could take a look at the various schools and universities many of these so-called “experts” graduated from, and what they studied while at those institutions. We could also take a hard look at whether these institutions are politically neutral, or do they have a particular political bias – as maybe evidenced by the various social causes they fund and support? We could also look into who and/or what agencies are responsible for paying them, and what the payors support for their “pet causes”. Then, we could also weigh their statements and pronouncements against what we know about commonsense and common knowledge. After all, is there REALLY a requirement for one to have all kinds of officiated “paper” and “titles” to his/her name in order to have an opinion or observation mean anything to anyone? What about when the early feminists like Patricia Ireland, Gloria Steinem, et al wanted to change the English language by having the “womyn” distanced from the men, and even going so far as to refer to their past deeds as “herstory” instead of history (from the Greek root word “histor” – “1350-1400; Middle English historie < Latin historia < Greek historía learning or knowing by inquiry, history; derivative of hístōr one who knows or sees ”)? (Talk about absolutely innane and rather quite “uneducated” as far as their political thinking goes!)
Another problem that has seen society clearly go “downhill”,
Our economic problems have contributed greatly to the “two-wage-earner” households. This has resulted in many children being left to the care of other, outside agencies like daycare facilities. Daycare facilities are hardly a suitable replacement for genuine, interactive parenting by the biological parents. What’s more, most of these daycare facilities have a strict set of standards in how they operate, right down to how they are to interact with the children in their care. Again, politics often inserts itself into how the children are cared for, educated, and how childhood issues are to be dealt with (often at severe odds with how the family may wish for them to be addressed). Then, there is the problem of irresponsible daycare facilities who manage to flout the law and possibly cause serious harm to one or more children whom they should be caring for! It is often many years before certain resulting problems within the child surface, that is – as a result of an unpleasant, unresolved experience at the “state-sancitioned daycare”. At that point, who is to blame for the child’s on-going social and emotional problems? Having an interactive parent in the house with the child would have been far simpler and far more productive for the child’s well-being and proper development (especially in this example). Unfortunately, because of the shape of today’s economy, and the fact that it is getting so very expensive just to live in this day and age (progressively-opressive taxation is also a big culprit), many households need both parents to maintain a full-time day job – often just to “get by”!
The point I want to make, clearly, is that because we have supposedly “civilized” ourselves, we have gone so far away from the Natural Principles of understanding the commonsense and wisdom, gained through careful and thoughtful observation of the “how’s” and “why’s” of the Natural Law, and how everything was intended to be “balanced”. Now, we have entire populations ruled and weakened by all those innane “rules” that often conflict with the Natural Principles. Here are some examples I became plainly aware of, from personal experience, on just how out of sync our modern society has become, in respect with the “battle between sexes”:
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, teenage sexual promiscuity has been steadily trending to an increase of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies,
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, juvenile deliquencies and crimes have been steadily increasing,
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, sexually-transmitted diseases and other health problems have become far more frequent,
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, divorce rates have skyrocketed to the point that the average marriage is expected to only last about two to five years, regardless of whether children are present or not,
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, single-parent households have become more common (possibly one of the leading causes of the sharp increase in juvenile crimes as well as other child behavioral problems),
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, in most divorce cases, far more women than men are given total custody of the children, sometimes regardless of the obvious examples and evidence that may call into question fitness to parent the children,
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, how many men have been displaced from the workforce, whether through employer’s sexual-preferences or other “economic reasons”,
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, how much more do men pay in insurance premiums, of any sort, than women EVEN when considering both having similar life styles,
- How many states have “domestic violence laws” on the books where, in ANY calls on domestic violence, if there is a male involved – he automatically gets arrested, sanctioned, or ordered off of the premises – regardless who is at fault or is the initiator of the conflict (even when there is no evidence of violence beyond verbal confrontation),
- How many states have laws on the books that award the household and/or estate to the woman in a divorce case, automatically,
- Since the “Women’s Liberation Movement”, how many females now have drinking and/or drug abuse problems,
- Since the 60’s “Sexual Revolution”, how many actual sex-abuse, rapes, and sexual-harassment incidents as compared to reported/perceived have occurred,
- How many cases have there been where, in a case of murder, the woman was let off with a very light sentence as compared to what would have been the pronounced sentence for a man in the very same situation,
- How about the fact that “money” is a prime reason why so many relationships fail,
- How about another prime reason why so many relationships fail: lack of communication,
I could go on and on with examples that are REAL LIFE happenings, but why bother! The point of this post was to show how ridiculous and how base are these arguments that are often made to justify continuing this innane war on the sexes, and how effective they are at crippling the very best a society has to offer. The modern statistics (if one verify them to be accurate, and not “biased” for political reasons) are very sobering indeed. Yet, today’s society STILL wants to blame everything bad and negative on all men (and especially “White” men at that). This only serves those who seek to rule over us by keeping us divided up in our idealogical “camps”, rather than see us united together and seeing who the REAL enemies of mankind are!
So, what are the solutions, then, that will cure all of these ills you ask?
Back to Nature. If we are to survive all of these upheavals and even put an end to all the senseless wars (the obvious and not-so-obvious wars, that is) which threaten our continued existence, we need to seriously start thinking and DOING those things that are in accord with Nature, if at least in one measure: “Respect”. We seriously lack the respect for most things and others in our lives because we have been coached into thinking, in part way, only of “public image”. We have also been “coached” into doing away with thoughts about being self-sufficient while at the same time being forced to “mold” ourselves into a societal image that is often completely unnatural to each of us. We have allowed the high-paid “experts” to do all of our thinking for us, rather than rely on good old-fashioned commonsense as our parents and other elders would have taught us. We have allowed ourselves to be taken advantage of by those who profess their right to “rule” over us (supposedly for “our” protection) by which any means they see the need, and by which devices and methods THEY feel fit to employ. We have allowed ourselves to get side-tracked from the real issues while we burn away the hours at some low-paying job we believe will take care of us in our “golden years”. We expend all of our remaining energies over television “professional sports” by championing some perceived hero on the field, when all of that does absolutely NOTHING to help us better our lot and the state of our communities. We allow ourselves to be talked into supporting more onerous propositions and policies, supposedly for our betterment, when in reality, these policies just further our own destruction. We blindly join in the psychological and social manipulations, and “wars of -divide and conquer-” that serve little, our own greater interests.
Nature set the standards for us long before time. Nature made, clearly, the demands for survival require working together (if we are a social creature), being active (and even pro-active where there is definite need), having the inner-fortitude to do that which is right and best fit for our survival (individual and collective), and respecting Nature and the unwritten laws and principles by which all things are ultimately governed. This includes being the responsible stewards of everything we are given and/or inherit, to include the land, all creatures that come into our existence, and all things that should appreciated and, if no longer needed, regifted, repurposed, or returned towards its origin (recycled?). We also need to honor the fact that Nature made the two different sexes of our species, as done for so many others, with the intent that this idea would help to make our species stronger than before, and more durable and adaptable where and when needed. We also need to acknowledge that NEITHER sex is generally superior to the other: We may each have particular roles that we are more suited for, but the other may be more suited for other roles we ourselves are not so well suited for. BOTH sexes play a crucial role in our specie’s survival. This we must honor as it was ordained by Nature, and Nature’s God, long ago. For us to disregard the importance of all of us being able to possitively contribute to the greatness of our kind, our societies, and our Natural World – is but to disgrace and dishonor Nature AND Nature’s God. – This is where many of the “churches” have led us all astray too! – This includes the femino-centric “neo-paganism” and “New Age” movements.
So, please read and consider what I have written here. I do not stand on any arguments that pit one sex versus the other! It is a huge waste of time and effort, and also only further contributes to our societally-induced detritus as a species and kind. Nature does everything in a balance. It is WE, who make the arbitrary judgments out of sync with Nature, that operate OUT OF BALANCE.
– Rev. Dragon’s Eye
Founder and Chief-Elder Dragon of,
TEMPLE OF THE ANCIENT DRAGONS