Hi there! This post was removed from Psychology Today by the author, but you can still read it in its original form here:
Society in general is hostile and belittling to men.
The future shock is going to be "Oh no -- we did need men!"
As someone who has been married for 25 years I can't afford to get a divorce because I'd probably end up in jail if I ever lost my job and couldn't pay alimony.
To single men ----- DO NOT GET MARRIED!
It is an evil trap where men lose all of their rights.
The only way women are going to get the kind of relationships they truly want are to just marry each other.
The only way for women to get equal relationships (what we TRULY want) is for us to marry other women?
Are you saying men are INCAPABLE of functioning in a male-female pair unless they have some kind of power advantage?
Do you really see it as a "loss of rights" for men to not have legal/social authority over us?
Society is not "hostile" towards men - it is simply no longer trying to COVER UP men's historical and current transgressions towards women. Women HAVE been (and some places, still are) oppressed by men - acknowledging this is not "demonization" of men, but simply a nececcarry step to make certain it does not happen again.
Society is only "hostile" to those men who think male transgression against women should be covered up or be accepted.
You can twist it anyway you want but society is hostile to boys and marriage is a big loss of rights for men.
Nope. And it doesn't matter how many times one tries to twist reality: Society is not "hostile" towards men. In fact, men still have the advantage in both business and politics. That we no longer label historical oppression of women as "protection" (or deny that it happened) - does not change this.
And FYI: Being married takes no more rights away from men than it does women. In fact, our society still puts more pressure on married women than men - when it comes to f.ex expectations of giving up career to care for children. So, in regards to BEING married, I'd say it's still women who get the raw deal.
Have you read Dr. Helen's "Men on Strike?"
@CHAD You said 'Nope. And it doesn't matter how many times one tries to twist reality: Society is not "hostile" towards men.'
1) A man can be imprisoned from a false accusation with no evidence. For example, A man spent 7 years in jail from a false rape allegation from his daughter and another man was taken to court when a complete stranger picked his photo out of facebook to falsely accuse. A more high profile example would be the Michael Le Vell trial (Corination Street Actor false allegations).
2) A young boy can be raped by his female teacher with the female in question very often receiving a mere slap on the wrist and the rape is often labelled as 'sex'. You can see a few cases here http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/39783/
3) A man can be killed in his own home by SWAT just from his gf calling the police (after being dumped). 'Police shot unarmed man, drove an armored truck through his door when he did not exit his property on command' all because his gf was upset about being dumped and she called the police saying he owned a firearm. She was not even in the area at the time of the incident. Now reverse the gender and ask yourself whether this would have still happened. Another case was a boy shot in 10 seconds when he was spotted carrying a replica gun.
4) A man can be imprisoned and fined for trying to check a child is his own (or not). Paternity testing is banned in France 'If those samples were found in the post by officials on their way to foreign laboratories, the French men who sent them could theoretically face a year in prison and a 15,000 Euro fine. This year the ban was challenged but the French Government decided to uphold and maintain the anti-paternity testing law.' Other countries are planning to follow this example too. A ban on vasectomy has also been mentioned.
5) A man can be prosecuted / arrested for sexual harassment if his mere looking at a woman (yes just looking)was deemed harassment. Look up 'Misandric French Law Criminalizes Men Who Upset Women By Looking At Them'
6) The mutilation of male genitals has been laughed at on national TV by women without repercussion or real apology. If men did the same, the show would have been shut down and there would have been consequences. Look up 'Sharon Osborne laughs about male genital mutilation'
7) A man can be violently assaulted by a woman without it being taken as seriously by police compared to if the genders were reversed.
8) The media depicts most men as bumbling fools and project that it is ok for women to hit men or kick them in the balls.
9) If a woman uses deception to impregnate herself using a mans stolen sperm (sperm jackers), he has no rights or decisions concerning whether he has the child and will have to pay child support. For example 'A 15-year-old boy who was raped by a 34-year-old woman now faces child support in Nebraska.'
10) The courts are bias towards women in sexual abuse cases, divorce, domestic violence and pretty much everything else. See above.
11) Everything I have mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg but it gives you some idea. The word 'hostile' is putting it mildly.
Helen Smith in "Men on Strike" has made an attempt to ignite a discussion of men and their actual situation in our culture. One of these days, that discussion will take fire and then reach critical mass. What slows down such a discussion are the Feminist/Academic Complex and the news media. Anytime a man objects to how men are portrayed in schools, universities, or the media, he is shouted down as a sexist, homophobic, wing nut and there is no discussion to be had. The day will come though, when men fight backk. "No army is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." - V. Hugo
"Being married takes no more rights away from men than it does women"
Just look at what family courts do to husbands and father's they lose all of their rights.
You're still stuck in the myth that women are oppressed. Never has there been more support for women, not to mention affirmative action.
Modern women are not to be trusted.
Step out of the double bind. Society treats men and women bad. Marriage has been debased for all through the non enforcement of it.
I wonder if there's a contractual way to recreate it?
You clearly have never experienced the family court system. Tell me how that is "equal"? And what the hell do the historical transgressions of men have to do with me (or you for that matter). To put it bluntly when it comes to equality some feminists are trying to suck and blow at the same time.
Glad to see this book getting more publicity. Thanks, Shawn. It was an eye opener when I read it.
Thank you Dr. Helen! I will be buying this book. I am a happily married man and I have a good wife. She respects me and treats me good. Yet I know that I am one of the lucky ones. I have seen many of my military buddies (men I was honored to serve with) lose nearly everything because of women who grew tired of being a military wife. They often cheated and then acted as if they were the victim and judges often sided with them. I even had a bit of an argument with a women who made the absurd claim that if a man were raped (unless he's gay) there was no real harm done because he could just dust himslef off and anyway he should have been strong enough to stop the rape. I blasted her sexist remarks. I told this vapid person that she was as bad as any male abuse of the past that hurt women. If men are in fact leaving and having good happy lives without women, I can not say that I am shocked. An equal love and respect between men and women would be great but it has to be a two way street.
There is a very good reason why men get screwed at the termination of a marriage. Unlike women, men tend to date and marry the women that are actively pursuing men for dating and marriage. Men rarely put the women they plan to marry under a microscope and take a hard look at her values and character, in contrast to women who often won't marry unless they know they have a good decent prospect.
Men often seem surprised and disappointed that their marriage is ending and their exwife is determined to play hardball. If some men did a little bit of homework such as check criminal and credit histories of the women they plan to marry, a lot of pain could be avoided. Psychology Today rarely tells men how to choose partners but has much to say about how a woman should pick a husband.
That is a great idea. Men do your homework on her and make sure shes worth keeping. I wouldn't ask someone to build my home without checking them out, the same should be true of the women we plan to marry.
Both parties ought to do a full background check on each other, then they can sit down together and go over it line by line, and include STD records, too! Instead they just do the loin test; if the loins are stirring, it must be right.
She could be triple AAA, the best catch in the pond. Doesn't matter time can change it and one day she may decide she doesn't want anything to do with you because the 'grass is greener' on the other side as egged on by her female co-harts.
1. DO NOT live with a female! Period, ever. Have a wonderful relationship together but keep her lifestyle choices over there and keep your lifestyle choices where you want.
I read Men on Strike and there's alot of truth to what she says. I'm married but am sticking in it for now until our kids are older. Once I'm out, I will not remarry.
Why? Because today's average American woman under age 45-50 is too spoiled and fussy. Granted, alot of men aren't exactly helping the cause. But the default assumption is it's men who need to change. I would make the case women need to make a few changes of their own.
The recent Atlantic Monthly cover story on gay marriage backs up what I'm saying. The article mentioned how lesbians split up at very high rates & concluded basically that women are too blasted picky whether they're gay or straight, as straight women initiate at least 2/3 of divorces.
I think it would be helpful if studies included other western countries rather than just the US.
Regarding male-female relationships, honestly I am not sure if this applies to the current discussion but as a European male what struck me about the US is that overall, the average male and female and not physically matched. On average a US female is much heavier than her male partner, a situation I did not see in Europe (again this is a generalization).
As a result it seems that plain average US females receive considerable more attention from males in the US than they do in many western countries and thus have a much wider range of potential mates than the average US male.
I am not sure but I think this is part of the story here. But again this is a big generalization.
Ha! The CDC says otherwise:
The percentage of obese men is higher than women until you get the 60 and older age group, by which point many men have already died. The main difference is that obese women are judged more harshly, because women are judged on appearance, and men are judged on ability to provide.
Men are tired of avaricious gold diggers, and women are tired of overgrown babies seeking a domestic servant. Looks to me like both are giving marriage a miss.
That's because obesity is defined much more leniently for women than it is for men.
Uh....sure. BMI is a stupid and inaccurate measure, but it is the same for both genders.
I don't know why any man would bother getting married. Most of them would be better off with a dog for loyalty, some buddies for companionship and a regular hooker for sex. It would certainly work out cheaper in the long run!
No-fault divorce nullifies the concept of marriage. The ease with which one can dispose of their spouse through divorce, even when the spouse filing for the divorce is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage, is unencumbered by our laws and largely accepted by our society. Furthermore, the non-working or non-breadwinning spouse often has positive incentives to initiate divorce, which leaves marriage plagued with the potential for fraud and abuse. The psychological, emotional, financial, legal, spiritual and physical consequences of divorce make marriage an untenable risk. It's the reality of the disposable nature of marriage, the potential for fraud, abuse and the consequences of divorce that drive men away from marriage.
No fault divorce is society's recognition that divorce is preferable to murder. If it also make marriage less desirable, or too expensive, so be it.
Julia Merfeld would disagree, which was the point of my post. There are a lot of women out there that get married just to have kids and a willing victim to milk dry. I'm not saying it always starts out that way, but in a lot of cases, that is the ending.
In Julia’s case, going through the process of no-fault divorce was far more difficult than hiring a hit man to murder her husband. All it took was the incentive of a $400K cash payout from the insurance company to find no-fault divorce less appealing than murder.
While Julia's case is extreme, it illustrates the point of my post. I’ve known several women in my lifetime that have unwittingly divulged similar, albeit less extreme ‘milking tactics’ in confidence to friends, only to later have those friends rat them out. In fact, the majority of women I’ve known on a personal level have displayed similar character traits. It’s as if they live under the delusion that, so long as it benefits them personally, they should be able to destroy whomever they want. This entitlement mind set fascinates me. I've been researching it for some time. I believe this to be the prevailing attitude of a large percentage of women.
Both genders have a history of murdering spouses for money, no argument there. The no fault divorce means there is a way out if you just can't stand them any more and want out regardless of resources. Before that, murdering the spouse, even if they owned nothing, was the only way to get out and be free of them.
I would love to argue with your cynical view of women, but I've seen too much of it myself. I used to work for a large company that had gender separated locker rooms. The women would happily chatter about whom to get pregnant by to collect the most resources. The mercenary angle is one reason I don't have female friends. Actually seeking a "nice starter husband" is repugnant. However, that crap does go both ways. I knew a petty criminal who married a woman he despised, because she inherited wealth and was lonely, and was willing to share that wealth with anyone that would keep her from being lonely. I also had the interesting experience of my ex husband telling me not to take the car in for brake work, he'll fix it, then claiming he did so when he didn't, because he wanted me to die in a car wreck so he could collect the huge, 5K life insurance policy.
Biologically, the woman wants resources, and the man wants to spread sperm at low cost. Historically, there was no way to determine fatherhood or track them and hold them accountable. That has changed. Women have always wanted resources, but had no way to prevent the man just spreading seeds and walking away. Now she doesn't care, because she can use the courts to take his resources where ever he is, and she probably didn't really want to do his laundry, anyway.
“Both genders have a history of murdering spouses for money, no argument there.”
Agreed. Disturbing as it might be, it is common. As women secure more power and resources, the rate of female perpetrated crime, fraud, or what have you, will increase in kind. Men and women are equally flawed.
“Actually seeking a "nice starter husband" is repugnant.”
Biologically cognizant response by the female gender. Beta males are mostly repugnant to the female species.
“…because he wanted me to die in a car wreck so he could collect the huge, 5K life insurance policy.”
Rat B@ST@RD! He should be strung up on the highest of trees, swinging only by his testicles.
“Biologically, the woman wants resources, and the man wants to spread sperm at low cost.”
And there it is. The basis of all procreation. The female mates primarily with the male possessing the strongest genes. The male mates with just about anything. Even a pillow suffices in certain situations. A female in heat attracts many males. After the males finish beating the cr@p out of one another, the female, whether she likes it or not in some cases, is inseminated.
Biologically and historically, this story plays out across all species.
One might postulate that the decline of Western culture is directly attributable to the increase in technology and the rejection of natural, human biological imperatives. Women have a natural tendency to seek security and resource. Alpha males, due to the superiority of their survival genes, end up in prison or in positions that defy natural female resource seeking instincts; hence an increase in birth rates amongst the beta males, couple with a tanking of fertility rates across the board. As women gain more power and resources, and as women enact more anti-alpha laws, alpha male instincts are being slowly eradicated from our cultural landscape in favor of a more modern, culturally normative beta male behavioral norm (wow…can’t believe I just wrote that).
Putin: Alpha male.
Obama: Beta male.
Both equally desirable to the modern female. The catch? One represents the pinnacle of resource and stability. The other? The pinnacle of male sexuality, bad boy mentality and psycho-sexual virility. Putin is one bad ass dude. Obama is a touchy-feely sort. Both approaches appeal to a woman. Nevertheless, I think most women, after having stripped both men of their government granted power mystique, would choose to get it on with Putin (or Clinton for that matter). Obama's allure, to most women, exists in his ability to patronize feminine needs for resource and security. Putin, on the other hand, fulfills a woman's desire for an alpha (Clinton in an alpha as well).
I think you're correct on the surface, but the real difference between the two is that, while both are corrupt and self serving, the systems they operate in are different, and require different tactics to get to the same place. Russia is still a far more violent place (despite the whining of the pacifists), and frequently have political assassinations that are never solved. You have to be a "tough guy" to stay on top there. In the US, we don't tolerate that sort of corruption, we prefer the corruption of appeasement, pandering, and financial malfeasance, which is where Obama has put his efforts. Neither would succeed in the land of the other.
I find them both disgusting.
"I find them both disgusting."
While I find them disgusting as well, I'm often spell bound by those that can function in such dubious roles and simultaneously maintain their own psychological well being. For example, you can take the average, everyday person, hand them an M16, and with a few months training, get them to kill just about anyone. All that's needed is to convince them that they're killing 'those people' for the good of 'their people'. The Germans and Japanese pulled it off brilliantly in WW2, and their soldiers were red blooded humans just like the rest of us. Maybe what we hate most in life is within us all.
I have a different take on it. I don't think they do maintain their psychological well-being, which is why they are so very careful to surround themselves with layers of yes-men. If they had to face even the normal sort of questioning that the rest of us do to justify our actions, they'd fall apart. Top level politicians are *probably* pathological narcissists; I suspect it's a job requirement.
Incidentally, I don't recall where I heard it, but my understanding was that if you take a pile of people, put them in the military, put them through basic training, and send them into the field, something like 16% of them, even armed, knowing that the enemy is armed, and knowing that they will die if they don't shoot, still can't shoot an armed enemy right in front of them. Not everyone is cut out to be a warrior, that's for sure!
What you are really saying (politely) is that cuckolding is the biological norm. This has been observed in many animals as well. The female "pairs up" with the stable Beta male provider who makes sure she has food and shelter but gets her rocks off with the arguably genetically/biologically superior, but socially much riskier Alpha male.
It's all about obtaining the highest status partner. Tis the ID, don't cha know. Every wealthy, decadent culture follows the same path. "One for money, two for the show." Both men and women are equally culpable in this regard. Why? That's life, folks.
I am beginning to think that most of the people that read Psychology Today are absolutely and completely, out of their minds. No, most women DO NOT find Putin attractive or appealing in any sort of way. He comes across, by his actions and his strange media appearances, to be a mean and vicious psychopath. Also, extremely unattractive. Obama on the other hand, is extremely appealing. Very intelligent and highly articulate, seems to prize his strong and independent wife, and makes generally solid decisions. Not perfect of course, but who is?
What I find really disturbing on this thread is how many men (and allegedly, women), that think it is perfectly natural for a woman to pick out a victim to marry and divorce, strictly based on income potential (real or imagined). Sure, there are some women out there like that, just as there are an equal amount of men, but it's not the majority by any means. I expect to see these kinds of bitter comments on news websites but not on Psychology Today. I am horribly dismayed that there are so many delusional and bitter people cruising this site, to throw in their bizarre world views. Maybe if you stopped looking for your potential spouses in strip clubs, you'd actually find a decent woman. Most of us really are decent, and plan to marry for love not money. Maybe the men that can't find the decent women need to look at themselves for the reason why. Try actually treating other people with respect and kindness, try to maintain a minimum of hygiene, and peel yourselves away from TV sports. As a non-sports fan, there are few things I find as uninteresting as watching football, baseball or even bowling on TV. Read a book, learn to converse reasonably intelligently, and you're likely to meet a great woman to date in the immediate future.
You do realize that Psychology Today isn't a scientific journal, right? It's a website paid for by advertising, and what they want is to generate a lot of clicks. Outrage generates clicks. Authors post outrageous things, people click, $$ happens, the end.
I would argue a point here. Women, despite gains in power and status, still don't rule the country, that's still old white men. The "anti-alpha" laws wouldn't be written by women, but rather by beta males to keep down the rivals. Frankly, I'm surprised I still have gun rights. Women still want resources, but the modern world has changed how resources are gathered, and shifted the balance away from brute strength toward manipulation. Then again, maybe that's just an illusion. The shopkeeper has always been wealthier than the warrior.
I was rather amused watching spiders mating outside my door. Completely different scenario. The female builds her own web, catches her own food, etc. The male just shows up briefly, and does his best to mate and flee without getting his head bitten off. I'm really glad I didn't have to eat my ex husband's head...that's kinda gross. :-)
"The male just shows up briefly, and does his best to mate and flee without getting his head bitten off."
That's how I roll. By the time I hear, "That was it!?", I'm 100 miles away. ;)
Spider sex; faster than the blink of an eye!
A man and a woman lie down together. Then, they have lots of great sex (fun stuff). But that's not supposed to be the end. What should happen after that is that their heats touch. What should happen after that is that they fall in love and remain in love through the good and bad. They're supposed to recognize one anther's weaknesses and work to shore up what's missing in one another. What should happen next is that they build a life together and raise their offspring. They're supposed to guide those offspring into becoming even better adults than they were, passing along a greater life goal to them.
Life doesn't always work out so perfectly. Yet sometimes is does.
I think it has to go the other way around. If the hearts don't touch first, and the falling in love doesn't happen first, then it won't follow the sex. If the sex happens first, most people just feel rather silly and empty once it's over, and the man has got the part he wanted already. That makes it far less likely that the other bit will happen. That is, after all, why "upholding family virtue" has historically been dumped on the woman. The man "eats shoots and leaves", and that was usually what he wanted in the first place. The only control the woman has over that is abstinence until she gets the bit she wanted. Now that the stigma of illegitimate children has largely dissipated, she has less incentive to abstain, and since they didn't fall in love first, she'd probably rather just have the child support anyway.
Guys love a woman that is supporting and male ego stroking, yet simultaneously gives off that strange girl scent thing around other males (keeps him on his toes and challenged). I don't know what you girls call it, but it's there nevertheless. All males, no matter their species, respond to that scent. Men need that to thrive and regenerate in one-on-one relationships.
Girls like a 'take charge' kind of guy. He's a man's man in his pack, but also a bit of womanizer at the same time. He just has that 'guy thang'. Women respond to this man. Men keep a woman interested by being respected in his pack and maintaining his appeal to other females.
How to you take the woman scent thing and turn it into a lifelong pairing with the womanizer guy thing? You build a society that encourages and supports lifelong, healthy bonding between men and women. Those that wander from the path must be deemed traitors to society. Spouses that stray must become blacklisted. Those days are long gone now however. Only women can bring those days back. Men love the whole 'free sex - no attachment' thing way, way too much. Women control sex and reproduction, which is the key to successful, long-term bonding and human survival.
But TooCoolToFool, why do women divorce men? "Oh - Well thanks for asking there, MisteryPerson." Women dump men that don't take care of themselves, don't give them regular, exciting sex and fail to bring home the bacon. Upkeep of the relationship psychologically, emotionally, physically and sprog-raising-wise is rather important for the female species. Can you say 'RESOURCES'? I'll help you out here with the pronunciation men: It's SHE...SHORE...SAYS!
But TooCoolToFool, why do men divorce women? "Oh - Well thanks for asking, MisteryPerson." Men dump women that don't take care of themselves, don't give them regular, exciting sex and fail to properly raise their sprogs. Upkeep of the relationship psychologically, emotionally, physically, sprog-raising-wise and financially is an absolute must for the male species.
As it always has been, so shall it always be. Women value a man for his ManThangNess. Men value women for their WomanThangNess(s)(c).
Were it not for ManThangNess and WomanThangNess(s)(c), human evolution would have ceased long ago.
The sad part is, it looks to me like the entire thing comes down to both genders wanting to weasel out of their chores. Women don't want to do the cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. Men don't want to do the yard work, clean the gutters, fix up the house. When they get together, they are both trying to get out of their chores, while expecting the other to do chores. And men can't really bring home the bacon, with a few high pay exceptions, so both have to work. If they work outside the home, they don't want to work when they get home.
Modern life often involves apartments or condos, which removes all the "man chores", but he doesn't pick up chores indoors to help. When people feel taken for granted and used, they decidedly don't feel romantic.
Women could only bring back "the old days" by acting en mass, and they won't because of competition. As long as men can get spider sex, they'll settle for that because it's cheaper and has more variety.
Relationships are work. No one wants to do the work. It's easier to just bump genitals and go home.
Doesn't help that no one seems to be teaching people how to manage relationships. I laugh when reading Psychology Today blogs about relationships, communication, etc, because I've never met anyone in my life that has the conversations these blogs suggest. Not lovers, not employers, not friends. Where do these mysterious, magical conversations take place? No where I've ever been!!
Feminism is not about women gaining power over men and 'leaving men behind'. It's about equality and girls and women bear the brunt of social, economic and political inequality the world over. To suggest otherwise is deluded and goes against all evidence. No wonder this author relies on anecdotal evidence. This is just another tired, predictable tirade against feminism. Girls and women gaining their human rights is the root of all evil apparently.
Feminism is not about women gaining power over men and 'leaving men behind', I agree.
But there is something going on that is about women gaining power over men and 'leaving men behind', which I'll call misandry for lack of a better word.
This book is not a tirade against feminism, but against misandry. It may mislabel misandry as feminism, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of its arguments.
If you don't think feminism isn't (for many women) about misandry, you need to educate yourself.
This is what feminists say when they don't think they can be overheard.
Warning: some of the posts collected by "Agent Orange" advocate hatred of up to and including talk of gendercide against men and boys.
Shawn Smith is a licensed psychologist in Denver, Colorado.