|
bcbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbc
ccbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbc
|
|
Bloke’s
Opening Statement
So far the men's movement appears to have been comprised of a variety of differing viewpoints. These range from the sociobiological leanings of John Gray's 'Mars and Venus' and Lionel Tiger's "The emasculated male' through to the political and sociological writings of Warren Farrel. The former can arguably be seen as too deterministic (biology as destiny) and the latter for all it's shrewd sociological observation somewhat devoid of practical strategy for change at the political grassroots level. A plethora of books do exist which fill the niche of personal change for men, but these don't often equate to men's acting collectively politically to garner men's rights. The conclusion I therefore reach is that very few men have consciousness of themselves as a group under threat whilst a whole raft of political policy affects them as such and indeed is actually targeted to do so.
The question arises therefore 'can there be a circuit breaker?' somewhat like what happened for women - like Grere's - 'The female eunoch' and Friedman's - 'The feminine mystique' (hopefully more sensible than these 2 treatise however). Also need it be in book form? Could it not be a movie? E-zine? Streamed video? Social event? Indeed what could it be that touches the hearts and minds of the great masses of men so apparently distracted by other concerns?
It's no surprise to those involved in the men's movement that far too many men seem unaware of the forces at work against their group's fuller engagement as parents, their relative lack of health and well-being, and their dichotomous stereotyping as success object/disposable loser.
These are broad and interrelated concerns perhaps best broken down into composite issues. Hopefully something this think tank will address as it compartmentalizes men's experience into issue areas (hopefully to be regathered into a well integrated view laden with effective strategy).
One thing appears clear above all else however. It is that men must break out of the aforementioned dichotomous stereotyping as provider/protector or disposable cast off. Men's propensity for stoic independence and individuation necessary to the roles of provider and protector, and women's view of men as useful or disposable represent huge obstacles for men to overcome however.
Are there signs this necessary group consciousness is developing, or put another way, are men becoming aware of themselves as a group so as to act in their own best interests? I believe the existence of a men's movement answers this question, so there is no cause for despondency. However this brings me to the central issue of my writing.
How can men more effectively combine to advance their interests whilst not aping radical feminism but holding humanitarian concerns for all of society?
How were women duped into believing the feminists credo of man bad / woman good. And how were women galvanized to mass action? Perhaps the answers lie in the spirit of the times and we live in more conservative times. There certainly doesn't appear to the level of social forment which accompanied the post war affluent boomer generation's civil rights drive. Perhaps it may be that the men's rights revolution will be an all together quieter and hopefully more considered affair than the women's rallies of the 60s and 70s. It's heartening to see there appears no men's equivalent of SCUM - society for cutting up men. Perhaps also then chivalry - so long instilled in men - and for all it's evils - will turn out to be some kind of saving grace in stopping men from going to such extremes.
However to return to the earlier question of how men can overcome being stereotyped dichotomously as either winners (Provider/protector) or disposable losers (Not able or willing to provide and protect). It is a central tenant of all major branches of psychotherapy that the way a group begins to move out of oppression commences with the process of a few individuals. These individuals become aware of roles held by others which oppress their group. They then name those roles and explain them to the larger group who see in themselves what those individuals saw in themselves and articulated. What aware men need then, is to carry this process into the widest public discussions using powerful motivating slogans which capture succinctly an array of men's issues.
The feminist political correct will and indeed do however seek to control such freedom of speech and thought. I'm not sure who said it but I recall someone said nothing can stop a simple yet powerful idea whose time has come.
Whereas the women's movement used thought memes encapsulated in the phrases 'My body, my right' and 'equal rights for women', men may in turn use their own phrases such as 'not just a wallet' and 'human too'. These thought memes (by which I mean simple ideas which create turbulence as they move through public discourse, shaking outmoded beliefs and creating paradigm changes) can be used very effectively to change the ways in which men are viewed and view themselves. How they are concocted and dispersed remains the subject of subsequent posts.
I hope these thoughts help. I'm aware I have chosen a somewhat rambling free ranging style of thinking and writing here. I've done so deliberately so as to keep myself mentally loose and open for forming new ideas.
I look forward to feedback and reading other men’s ideas.
Bubbly’s
Opening Statement
In a discussion on religion, it is necessary to indicate a starting position.I am not and never have been associated with any organized form of religion. In fact, for most of my life I have been a strong critic of religion in general.My main basis for opposing them has been that most wars in history have been battles between religious groups, Christians against Moslems, Catholics against Protestants, Hindus against Moslems, Jews against everyone, etc.
In addition, I have a deep hatred for the ‘thought police’ in the church that controlled science in the Middle Ages, specifically Galileo, for example. I also dislike the ‘procedures’ and ‘trivialities’ associated with ‘worship’ in a church building.
I find it unacceptable to base one’s whole life on a book written thousands of years ago and then to discover that ‘followers’ have in fact ‘cherry-picked’ those bits that they will follow slavishly (e.g. no contraception, no abortion, no women priests) because it was not in the ‘rules’, and ignored other bits (‘not coveting thy neighbours goods’, no female disciples so no women in power) as being out of touch with ‘modern’ times.
I have since modified my views slightly as a result of a longstanding friendship with a Christian, who has introduced me to her friends at the church, who are mainly thoroughly decent people (and do not have three heads).
My position is now that, whilst I could accept the idea that the universe was not created by accident (until science can come up with a better reason than ‘in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded’), I am not of the opinion that ‘worshipping’ either the ‘creator’ or a member of his team, or someone who may have had some contact with him or a member of his team, has any real purpose or effect in my life as it is today (or on any of them, no doubt).
My real complaint nowadays with the church is that they are guilty of failing to be ‘relevant’ anymore. They are guilty by omission. Traditionally, for people who knew no better, the church set the moral guidance for society. As science undermined the ‘threat’ and ‘power-base’ of religion, people turned away from the church, but unfortunately also threw out the morals and values of the church at the same time, particularly the family and marriage as the centre of society.
The church has stood by and ‘contemplated its navel’ rather than standing strong on the ‘morals and values’ arguments, with which few can argue.
There is no ‘secular’ equivalent of the Ten Commandments, of ‘morals and values’ to guide you in society.
As a result of this vacuum, the media has introduced celebrity ‘role models’ with their ‘get rich quick’ disposable fashion-centred trivializing idea of the ‘perfect’ life to aspire to. This can be measured in the ‘quantity’ of mobile phones, jewellery, piercings, tattoos, shoes, boyfriends, babies etc that you have rather than the ‘quality’ of any of these.
The omission of the church from the debate on ‘morals and values’ has been their greatest crime, and the main reason for their decline and that of society. Since it is overwhelmingly true that a strong family is at the heart of a strong community, the reverse is also true.
The absence of the father is the best predictor of future educational failure as well as directly linked to large rises in teenage pregnancy, anti-social behaviour, truancy, crime, drug use, alcoholism, suicides and mental illness – in fact all the negatives in society.
Hence my reason for joining the fathers’ campaign, as I can see that overwhelmingly on the evidence it is the right thing to do. If the evidence was the other way round, that is children did better when brought up without a father, I might not like it but I could understand why western governments were so anti-male. Since the reverse is true, I fail to understand why the negative feminist message has been so welcomed and now dominates western thinking entirely, to the point where speaking up for male victims of society is considered to be a ‘sexist’ act and potentially a criminal offence. Reminiscent of the ‘thought police’ in George Orwell’s book, 1984?
Against this background I will make my contribution to the debate.
All I can do is highlight a few useful phrases that stick out as being the key :
“For evil to succeed all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing"
“Yet we live is an age of dabbling in things. Many men dabble in men's
movement for a couple of months or years, then after meeting a pretty
girl its back to worshipping her form of romantic love which demands
your constant attention and submission to it.”
“The silence of Leading Church figures to the hijacking of their
Churches by Feminists is utterly amazing”
“Evidence strongly suggests that Males demand consistent Moral and
Legal Rules. With few if any exceptions. Justice is demanded by Men
for an orderly society. Again the Feminized Judicial, Legal, and
Political Institutions are short circuiting this. As a result we have
an anything goes culture. Even Murder, torture and Mayhem is excused
by Women. In fact Women who cut off genetalia of Male Partners is seen
as comedy in the US and fodder for jokes.”
“Fathers are the protectors of their biological investment. And they
are in fact a buffer from a violent Mother or other predatory Males.”
“Rage is building amongst our young Males.”
Paoli’s
Opening Statement
Main Theme: Where to Build Bridges and Where Not to?
The need for us to bridge the most popular aspects of truth in Western philosophy / theology, into a simple enough forum for the average man’s busy timetable, will be a tricky one. Christianity & Atheism (both with their many versions) are the two main groups that at present dominate the West with their intellectual struggle that has caused a massive distrust amongst men- sometimes like no other. This over blown and dysfunctional level of disunity of high thought (of course much less in violence than say the Sunni/Shia conflict in the Middle East) has taken many forms in politics and other issues of concern to undermine the men’s & fathers' movement at every turn. Although pragmatic types would wish to dismiss getting into this combustible foundation, with any depth, only avoid the problem and cause me to feel they will push their ideas in this area indirectly later. This indirectness with those close or closer to you is the effeminate way, and is rampant in our societies and is something we must change by being as directly constructive as possible with those in common cause to build trust that is sorely lacking at present.
These pragmatic people do rightly point out that this is only likely to open sensitive veins that could lead to nowhere in the end. This is true, yet not dealing with it in anyway will lead to others trying to override any lesser conclusions we may more pragmatically come to an agreement on in the future. These who say deal with it later will, in effect, can trump men’s & fathers' rights ideas with higher fake Humanistic truths or God’s truths.
This pragmatic approach of not dealing with higher thought in the end is effeminate ground, which hopes to avoid the stressful straight talk until one's ideas can be brought to bare over others more softly and indirectly. Women are all about pragmatism. If we can have even a moderate meeting of the minds at the highest level of issues the unity deriving from it will flow throughout all the other issues in our path. There are far too many things in our path to skip threw the beginning (or the foundation).
Although other religions present themselves as cures to our problems, they are unlikely to supplant these other two dominate views of the western world any time soon, baring Islam winning Europe with its slow birth rate in the next 50-70 years. At present Buddhists in the Far East suffers from a low birth rate too, while Moslem nations are bound to suffer if they adopted more freedoms of the feminist kind.
Aside from terrorists I feel the western world is looking at Moslems men, like men who get angry with the cops who come to their door at the behest of the state, who are at the behest of the feminist lobby, which in turn is only giving, both, the Susie-Homemakers and Feminist supporters what they want. This locking horns or rutting with other direct men over those who are truly destroying our families with a PC soft voice and their indirect weaselly ways (gradualism), make these bucks into buffoons. They are reinacting the mating ritual of ramming heads with those who they think are peeing on their legs or territory, when in fact these other men are just being forthright and direct in the defence of their traditions (from fashion of the feminist kind or other influences). We are in fact being peed on by women or more clearly effeminates (who preach faith in personal ideas of love will trump all ). It's a of the kind teenage girl moral compass takes on the world of ideas. This is insane, yet is in fact what has been embraced by the society.
The Moslem’s generally better run families is not at fault, for if we had a better birth rate we wouldn’t be looking over our shoulder at all. Many are placeing their desires for anger on another male form yet again!!! Even when one can see our problems rest with the indirect effeminates in our society we still let them off the hook. We talk about the feminists that are loud and up front, and tend to ignore the ones who act like Susie Homemakers, until after their marriage, when they float between the old ways and new ways when it suits them. I have 3 older 60s sisters and have seen this from a very young age. We are is some ways dealing with the same female flaws that were pointed out in the classics.
When we are challenged by face-to-face men, say from the Middle East, we get hot under the collar with them. Women and the effeminate statesmen are indirect bullies ( which are generally ignored or down played by the medias matching nature), but a single act of some direct male bully is routinely used as proof that the male way is far worse for there are so many that are scared of some much today. How have we been affected by our being brought up in this world. We must do steps to earn each others trust and be direct and show the never-say-die attitude to the cause.
Which is worse to be beaten up by a man who doesn’t like your ideas at all, or have all that you cherish taken from you with the impersonl bureaucratic steps of too much sophist paperwork.
If it weren’t the Moslems we would find some other male group to lock horns with. In fact this is the problem with the men’s movement, in that we continue to mark territory over little petty issues, as if they mean something, when of course they mean nothing to our cause and everything to our egos. Even when our lion men answer against the dishonorable terrorists, we still have undermining indirect effeminates that feel fighting never solves anything and more. If you believe in never fighting, than give up any argument you have right now for that is fighting of a sort too. When people say, I hate fighting I know they are really saying don’t do so directly, they like indirect conflicts. They are comfortable with this for they have accepted the new effeminate culture.
We need to destroy terrorists, but learn from the good Moslem family structures. We will, of course, find in their structures many traditional ideas that have been cast off by fashion and our own bending over to the new Medusa goddess of today. I would demand we not lock horns with lion Moslems (who are honorably direct and do not support indirect dishonorable terrorism in any way). Instead we need to lock horns with those who act as foxes or weasels in our own countries’ ranks (who are only different in their indirect ways, as compared with terrorists, in their lack of a more direct form of violence or their denial of the revisionism which causes violence). If modern feminists had planted bombs they would have gotten nowhere, instead through gradualism they rule.
We need therefore to possibly use these other less popular religious ideas to back up our mainstay (take truth from others in whatever form), but not try to do an overhaul without damming our movement to a high-level intellectual or relgious civil war throughout our lifetime, and therefore not get much done for men who are suffering. In this way I agree with the pragmatics. The need to bridge Atheists and Christian men, with something that works, is our first top priority in T3.
To this effect I will look at both of these two higher belief systems in some detail only, and to do so as unblinkingly constructive as possible.
To cover this ground I need to honorably state my position, so as to avoid the idea of indirectly pushing my ideas. I am an Atheist that feels that Christianity has done the better job in bridging their theology to those who have neither the time to spend studying the great truths, and therefore should be the more dominate of the two to guide the direction of any successful gathering of any loose working relationship of all our efforts. The best book to start with on the problems facing the world’s most successful religion is called The Church Impotent by Leon Podles, a Christian. His book faces the problems head on, and is a good read for those who have big problems with organized religion. He is also known for his book Why men don’t go to Church.
Christian ideas are still at the core of our civilization and to dismiss the need of them has and will continue to lead to a kind of cultural suicide that has gone on for some time. The key pluses to the religion are stated well below.
Michael Novak (Christian Theologian): Specifically, we in the North Atlantic civilization draw four thoughts, categories, or frameworks, or paradigms, from our Jewish and Christian roots. These four are the rights endowed in all humans by the creator; liberty of conscience; a regulative idea of truth; and historical consciousness…. It is not necessary to be a Jew or Christian in order to hold them in mind or, more exactly, to be held in their grip.
We atheists have failed in gaining unity of thought and have generally gone with fashionable ideas in the wake of being unable to get others to join us on our individual clouds of reason. Which in the end has been merely a Democratic Soul (covered under Socrates’ ranking of souls later). The best ideas of the philosophical school, that I will argue for, are to be found in my opinion with one of the oldest, Socrates.
Even many of those who call themselves Atheists and Christians follow new versions of mysticism, Freudian ideas taken way too far and finally hyper-rationalistic humanitarianism. None of these hold true to any clear principles that could be agreed on for they are based on Socrates’ Oligarchial Soul (discussed below). This is also pointed out by Mr. Podles for Christians too.
Winston Churchill: Out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge.
Socrates’ Ranking of Souls:
|
Philosophical Soul
1st - Reason (Logic)
2nd– Spirit
3rd - Desire (Feelings, Emotions)
|
The Honor-Loving Soul
1st- Reason or Spirit
2nd- Desire
|
|
The Oligarchical Soul
1st- Spirit
2nd- Desire or Reason
|
The Democratic Soul
1st- Spirit or Reason or Desire
|
| 
