Ladies: You Win. Only.... You Also Lose.

The war on men
By Suzanne Venker
Published November 26, 2012
FoxNews.com

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. Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t. The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late.

Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees.

The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women. As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

Women aren’t women anymore.

To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically. In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs. Now the men have nowhere to go. It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes.

Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s. But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault? You’ll never hear that in the media.  

All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat.

But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault. Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family.

Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever. It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life.

The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek. So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs. If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork. Suzanne Venker has written extensively about politics, parenting, and the influence of feminism on American society. Her latest book, "How to Choose a Husband (And Make Peace with Marriage)" will be published in February 2013. Visit howtochooseahusband.com for more information.

Your Rights, Cut Down.

Its called "Perfunctory"

British Government’s Child Custody Proposal Insults Fathers, Hurts Children

November 8th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq. After years of consideration, the British coalition government of Conservative David Cameron and Liberal Democrat Nicholas Clegg has issued its proposed amendments to the Children Act of 1989.  To anyone who believes that fathers and children should have meaningful relationships post-divorce or separation, the proposals are an insult.  To anyone who believes that mothers should be freed of some of the obligation of caring for children following divorce or separation, the proposals are a disgrace.  Put simply, after years of promises, after years of study, the proposals are a prescription for maintaining the dysfunctional status quo.
Thanks to Yuri, one of Fathers and Families’ intrepid readers and supporters, here is the language by which the government proposes to amend the Children Act.

1A Shared parenting
(1) Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of the child) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert –
“(2A) A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is
as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the
contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child
concerned will further the child’s welfare.”
(3) After subsection (5) insert –
“(6) In subsection (2A) “parent” means parent of the child concerned; and, for
the purposes of that subsection, a parent of the child concerned -
(a) is within this paragraph if that parent can be involved in the
child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering
harm; and
(b) is to be treated as being within paragraph (a) unless there is
some evidence before the court in the particular proceedings to
suggest that involvement of that parent in the child’s life would put
the child at risk of suffering harm whatever the form of the
involvement.
(7) The circumstances referred to are that the court is considering whether to make
an order under section 4(1)(c) or (2A) or 4ZA(1)(c) or (5) (parental responsibility of parent other than mother).

Notice first that the law presumes maternal custody.  The “circumstances” under which a court is to presume that the involvement of a particular parent will “further the child’s welfare,” are those in which it is considering some custodial arrangement other than maternal responsibility for the child.  If the court is not considering that, then all bets are off.  All a court has to do is to ignore the possibility of some form of paternal custody and none of the proposed amendment applies.  Once again, Dad is out in the cold and his children are left wondering why they no longer see him.  Mothers are presumed to “further the child’s welfare;” fathers need to jump through a few hoops.
But even if a court considers the possibility of some form of paternal involvement in a child’s life, the proposed amendment imposes not the slightest burden on it to actually permit the child to see its father or the father his child.  In the first place, what does “involvement” mean?  According to normal English, it can mean virtually any form of contact between father and child, regardless of how slight.  Who can deny that allowing a father to visit with his child for, say, one hour per month in a closely-monitored setting constitutes “involvement?”  How about one hour per year?  The point being that, to the extent the proposed amendment mandates anything (and it doesn’t), there’s almost nothing a judge can do that’s too little to satisfy its terms.  Will a father who’s been granted one hour per month visitation with his child be able to appeal the judge’s order on the grounds that the amendment demands more?  Of course not.  ”Involvement” can mean anything greater than nothing at all.
If that’s not bad enough, let no one believe that fathers are accorded any rights under this amendment greater than what they already have.  Take a look at section (6)(b).  A parent may be allowed the aforesaid “involvement” with his child “unless there is some evidence before the court” to suggest he may pose a risk of harm to the child.  The attorneys reading this will know what the term “some evidence” means.  For our non-attorney readers, be advised that “some evidence” means any amount at all no matter how slight.  Technically, it can even mean evidence that is dubious, barely believable, etc.  So if a mother takes the witness stand and says “my ex-husband poses a risk of harm to the children,” that may constitute “some evidence.”
Keep in mind, her evidence may be rebutted by contradictory facts such as Dad’s never having harmed the children before.  No matter, the amendment is clear; Mom has given testimony and that constitutes “some evidence” of Dad’s risk of harm.
To recap, the government’s proposed amendment applies only in cases in which the court is considering some form of custody other than maternal custody.  If it’s not doing that, the amendment has no applicability to the case at bar.  If the court does consider some form of paternal custody, mere “involvement” will suffice.  ”Involvement” can be anything greater than nothing at all.  But even those crumbs will be denied to father and child if there is “some evidence” regardless of how slight, regardless of how unbelievable, regardless of whether it’s rebutted by superior evidence, of the possibility that he’s a risk of harm to the child.
In a nutshell, that is what fathers and children in England and Wales are being offered by the Cameron/Clegg government.  Did I call it an insult, a disgrace?  Yes, I believe I did.

British Press Misrepresents Child Custody Proposal

The British press is most impressed.  Articles in the Telegraph and the BBC have waxed rhapsodic about the proposal claiming it guarantees contact between fathers and children, and even, in the case of the Telegraph, that it mandates a “meaningful relationship” post-divorce.  It doesn’t.  The words of the statute are as plain as can be and there is no requirement that fathers have a meaningful relationship with their children.  Judges would be required to order that only if the words were in the statute.  They’re not.  Reporters should read the proposal.
I hope it passes.  Clearly this amendment, if it becomes law, will make not the least difference in the custody rulings of British family courts.  As I’ve said before, those rulings reflect judicial bias far more than they do the mandates of applicable law.  After all, no British law requires judges to give custody to mothers 90% of the time, but that’s what they do.  No law requires those judges to refuse to enforce the meager visitation rights of fathers, but they do that too.  The simple fact is that British judges have real difficulty grasping the simplest of things, like the fact that children need two parents in their lives, irrespective of whether their parents are married, divorced, separated or never married.  But judges are stuck in a mindset that’s wholly at odds with social science and antagonistic to the best interests of children who need both parents, fathers who need their children and mothers who need the opportunity to work, earn and save.  There is nothing in the proposed amendment that will change that mindset.
If the amendment passes, in a couple of years or so, we’ll be able to see that nothing has changed in the way custody and access are ordered by the courts.  We’ll then be able to scratch this absurd amendment off the list of possible agents of change and move on to something better.
In the mean time, we’ll be able to start doing what we should have done long ago – targeting wrong-voting/wrong-thinking members of Parliament for defeat at the polls.  To be blunt, this amendment is the type of nonsense officeholders come up with when they have no fear of electoral consequences from the voters at whom they’ve just thumbed their noses.  For many politicians, fear is the only real motivator.  Once they fear a group’s ability to make life for them hell at the polls, they miraculously come to grasp that group’s issues as never before.
Don’t get mad, get even.

Permiscuous Behavior Desireable for Young Women

From the mouth of a young woman, paraphrased "WHAT ABOUT THE EMOTIONAL TOLL [of sleeping around]!?!?!?!?!"

How ironic that the behavior that women, afterwards, feel the worst about, is being pushed as being good for them.

Explain that, dear reader.

And of course, the men are supposed to stop the girls from sleeping around and "put a ring on it."

In college!?!? Are you NUTS?!!??!

This Planned Parenthood program supposedly advocates "slut" as being good, and slut, according to the video below shows sex on the 1st date! That's good?

HOW IS THAT GOOD FOR WOMEN?!?!

Is a man REALLY EXPECTED to have respect for a woman who sleeps with him on the 1st date!?!?!?  And pursue her further? With the intention of marriage!?!?!?

HAVE THESE PEOPLE EVER MET A YOUNG MAN!??!?!?!

Planned Parenthood info for teens: It’s great to be a “slut”!

November 7, 2012, (STOPP.org) – “There’s tons of ways that people define ‘slut.’ Most, though, are f’d up.” That’s the lead in for an MTV video targeting teens and tweens on Planned Parenthood’s Info for Teens Facebook page. This denigrating instructional video takes place in a classroom setting and encourages young girls to become promiscuous and emphasizes that others should respect them because, as sluts, they are “confident in their sexuality.”

Francisco, the young, attractive “Savage U” sex instructor, stands in front of a chalkboard showing one large stick figure and many small ones. He says, “Let’s say this guy [the big one] has hooked up with all these [little] people. Whoa! What a stud.” Cheering is heard in the background. “But let’s say this is a girl,” he says, drawing a skirt on the large stick figure. “Is the situation any different? Yes or no? NO!” he says.

Attempting to convince students that anyone who judges someone because they are sexually promiscuous is bad, this “Sextra Credit” video portrays being a slut as a very desirable thing. However, since some might take offense at the word, Francisco says, “Be careful when you throw a word like ‘slut’ around. It should only be used for good.”

The video ends with a pop quiz. The upshot of the quiz is that if you don’t believe what Francisco says about his assertion that being a slut is a positive, healthy thing, “Sorry—you fail!”

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. In an article entitled “Misery U: Hook-up culture leaves casualties,” Dr. Miriam Grossman, a campus psychiatrist at UCLA, points out some of the more grisly surprises that await young women who have promiscuous sex. Addressing healthcare professionals and organizations in general, and in particular “Ask Alice”—a promiscuity promoting website that emanates from Columbia University and is linked from Planned Parenthood websites—Dr. Grossman says:

OK, hold on a minute. As a health expert, Alice, aren’t you forgetting a few things?

Let’s start with this: These young women who have turned to you are adolescents, and that likely means their cervix is immature and more vulnerable to infection. Surely you’ve studied basic gynecology and know about the transformation zone, where human papillomavirus (HPV) has infected about half of sexually active college women, usually from one of their first encounters. Did you forget that this area shrinks with time, making infection less likely? This fact alone behooves you to urge these women to wait.

You must know, as well, that early sexual debut and multiple partners are risk factors in the development of infertility as well as cervical cancer. When you encourage your readers to “experiment” and “explore,” Alice, they are more likely to have more total lifetime sexual partners than if they delay those relationships.

You know that herpes and HPV are transmitted skin to skin and can be passed even when there are no visible lesions, and that even with latex—recent surveys show a minority of college students used a condom during their previous encounter—the “protection” is incomplete.

And what about the research suggesting that sexually active female adolescents are more vulnerable to depression? You tell your reader that “exploring” will add to her well-being and peace of mind. I’m wondering which study it was, exactly, that reached those conclusions.

The college students who end up in my office don’t sound so carefree. They share grim tales of unwanted pregnancies and treatment for warts and abnormal Pap smears. They are ashamed and worried. Some have insomnia or depression related to their conditions. Others aren’t infected, so far as they know, they just have broken hearts.

One freshman whose first “real” boyfriend had just dumped her wanted to know, “Why, Dr. Grossman, do they warn you about STDs and pregnancy, but they don’t tell you what it does to your heart?”

What could I tell her? In my profession, common sense has vanished. It has been replaced by social agendas. The ideology of “anything goes,” “women are just like men,” “abortion is benign,” “sex is a recreational activity” is alive and well in much of campus health and counseling.

And Planned Parenthood is grabbing millions of tax dollars to teach “sex positive” sex education that imperils the health and well-being of young people on school campuses and through every venue imaginable. While it continually claims it isn’t getting government money to promote its abortion business, it readily acknowledges the receipt of millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to impact very young children with its twisted messages, while leading parents to believe it is somehow teaching abstinence in the process.

So, let’s see how encouraging teens to be promiscuous plays out for Planned Parenthood:

- Millions of taxpayer dollars in PP bank accounts
- PP executives in top 1.5 percent of household incomes nationwide
- Kids brainwashed by “sex positive” messages
- Kids become sexually active at very young ages
- Their health is ravaged by STDs (more money for PP)
- Out of wedlock pregnancies result
- Planned Parenthood goes in for the kill—abortion—generating much, much more money
- Repeat the scenario over and over
- Planned Parenthood gets filthy rich
Now let’s see how this plays out for families:
- Families have no money because the government gave it to Planned Parenthood
- Kids corrupted by Planned Parenthood
- Wedge driven between parents and children
- Kids’ souls stolen by sexual promiscuity
- Their health ravaged by STDs
- Hearts deadened by multiple hook-ups and resultant heartbreak
- Kids depressed and suicidal
- They engage in drug and alcohol abuse
- Children/grandchildren killed inside Planned Parenthood facilities without the knowledge or permission of adult family members
- America stands on the precipice of depopulation and financial collapse due to lack of younger workers to support an aging population
It’s a temporary win for Planned Parenthood and a FAIL for families.
Buy, hey, be careful how you throw that word “slut” around. Only use it for good.
Visit our website to learn more about how to defund Planned Parenthood today! Stop the madness!
This article originally appeared in the November 7 issue of the American Life League’s Wednesday STOPP report.

A.K.A., Common Sense for Adults

70 years ago, every adult on the street would know this and repeat it. Then the country got VERY wealthy, and the Roman-esque immoral attitudes emerged to create the mess we have today.

General Petraeus was, and is, a tremendous leader and very bright man. No one gets to his position without drive, intelligence and widespread agreement on his abilities. And this aging warrior suddenly has a woman who is the picture of health and vitality, bright, well-built, and half his age, making eyes at him and gazing longingly at him and his brilliance. He was flattered out of his mind and his instincts COMPLETELY took over. His fault? You bet. He should've pushed this woman to an e-mail/phone call-only contact. But he found himself too far down the slippery slope and it was too late.

As for her, she was in the presence of a well-regarded FOUR STAR GENERAL, the number of which is few and far between; these Generals can run armies and countries with APLOMB. There are very few men with that kind of talent. She found her alpha male, claimed him, tempted him with her body and charm and never looked back. The power seduced her; but she let it happen, and at some point, made it happen.

From Business Insider, some sage marriage advice:

The Truth Is... Hanging Out Alone A Lot With Someone You Find Attractive Is Asking For Trouble

Henry Blodget | Nov. 10, 2012, 11:26 AM | 33,043 | 57

CSM Marvin L. Hill

In the wake of the shocking resignation of one of America's greatest generals over an extramarital affair, the recriminations have begun.

Predictably, many people, including a Petraeus colleague, are already "blaming the woman." A nobody graduate student charms her way into the confidence of a powerful man — and then uses her seductive powers to bring him down.

Petraeus himself, in contrast, has admirably taken full responsibility for his downfall, declaring his behavior "unacceptable" and proactively resigning over it.

Meanwhile, both General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell have spouses and families who have already presumably been seriously wounded by the highly public affair. And the country has lost an extraordinary leader.

So, who's really to blame?

What is the central mistake here that everyone should learn from and try not to make?

The obvious answer is that you shouldn't cheat on your spouse, especially when you're in a position of such power and responsibility. Leaving aside the moral and personal issues involved, this behavior exposes you to enormous career and reputational risk and is therefore reckless and irresponsible.
But that answer is so obvious that it's not really helpful or insightful. Except for those who make extracurricular activity a way of life — the age-old lifestyle of "the mistress and the wife" — most people know that they shouldn't cheat. And yet, time and again, relationships, careers, families, and reputations are wrecked because good people make the same obvious mistake.

(Yes, sometimes, these "mistakes" turn out to be for the best. One or both participants use the affair as the trigger to end an unhappy relationship and then go on to spend their lives together. But too often, the affairs really do prove to be mistakes — mistakes that wreak havoc all around.)

So, what's the real lesson?  Is there a small mistake that often leads to the bigger mistake — a small mistake that is more easily avoided than the bigger one?

I think the answer is "yes."

Many years ago, long before I got married, I asked a happily married friend what her secret was. Specifically, I asked her how, in her second marriage, she had avoided succumbing to a temptation that had helped end her (very early) first marriage and the marriages of many, many other good, responsible people.

Her answer, learned from experience, was simple and quick:

"Never put yourself in a position where you're asking for trouble."

I had never heard that answer before. So I asked for details.

"You don't die when you get married," she explained. "If you spend enough time hanging out alone with someone you're attracted to, nature's eventually going to take over."

Even at the time that answer struck me as wise. And nearly thirty years later, it still seems wise.
We're animals, after all. And one reason our species has been so spectacularly successful over the millennia is that our instincts are powerful enough to trump just about everything — one instinct in particular.

By all accounts, General David Petraeus had more willpower and discipline and sense of professional duty than just about any man alive. If a man like Petraeus can fall prey to the same mistake that has destroyed so many other marriages, careers, and reputations, perhaps it's time we began to look at such mistakes differently, at least when it comes to trying to avoid them.

Specifically, perhaps it's time we acknowledged that, when we allow ourselves to be placed in certain intimate situations, these mistakes are very easy and natural to make. No matter who we are.

Absurd, Yet True

The young women will say this is "the way the game is played, don't blame me," and old women will say "its not true," and middle aged women will say "well the men only want us for our bodies, so why not?"

MEN seeing this graphic? Take a lesson. And run into the night away from any girl you suspect of it.

p.s. Rich men? If she leaves you, she takes all of your money, especially if you have a child - WHETHER YOU ARE MARRIED OR NOT.

but remember, women are always the victims. And they never plan or scheme anything. They are never responsible for their own actions.

No matter what.

Women Kicking Men's Fiscal Ass

"MEN'S WAGES DOWN 20% FROM THE 1970s."

Notice the expert all but states THERE IS NO WAGE GAP between men and women, due to women spending much more time outside of the workforce, and that women have made MAMMOTH progress and that by and large MEN have been decimated while women's earnings have SOARED.

"WOMEN ARE REALLY A HUGE SUCCESS STORY."

 but they need massive child support when divorced? Huh?

And despite women earning SO MUCH MORE, thanks to families breaking up and marriage failing so badly, CHILDREN HAVE FEWER RESOURCES; that is a result of DIVORCE AND BROKEN FAMILIES. The feminist solution of "huge child support awards" ARE NOT ACTUALLY HELPING THE KIDS.

As men have screamed so loud for so long: I don't pay child support, I PAY MOMMY SUPPORT. And it only goes to supporting her "lifestyle" of vacations and shoes and handbags.

Hugo: Wrong This Time

This is an article by Hugo Schwyzer. Hugo isn't a bad guy. He's aiming to be a centrist in the gender debate. He's married. He has a daughter. But I'm afraid Hugo is just a bit OFF on this one. He has other articles in which he is spot on.

This is not one of those articles. 

And yes Hugo, you walk dangerously close to the "Mangina" vortex.  That's why you've been divorced a few times. You started out as a man - what a woman defines as a "man" - a male homosapien with the characteristics a woman would be drawn to, the characteristics she wants to fuck and breed with (no disrespect to women; it was mother nature's decision to invest into women these instincts).

Hugo is married with a daughter and is comfortable, so mainly he takes off his diaper and waves it around and screams "Let's all just get along!"  Thanks Hugo, but when women are divorcing their husbands and stealing the couple's children (referring to typically as "her" children), the home he paid for, the diamond ring he paid for, the car he paid for, and 40% of his income until the kids are 21 (23 in MA), the battle lines have been drawn my friend. That's not a shot across the bow, that's a .357 shot through your eye and another straight through both nuts. Wake up, man. You're a sweet guy, but us "sweet guys," out there are being divorced by panicky alpha and beta females that want to upgrade their pussy husband for something more dominant, and in the process, laying financial waste and ruin to INNOCENT MEN. Men who did not lie, cheat, or steal ANYTHING. 

These things are being done every day and they are being done on a massive scale with the BLESSING AND HELP of the "independent" juidiciary branch of the union's Federal and state governments. 

Hugo? Its tough to say ANYTHING bad about the "feminsim" behind these acts and manage to be wrong. Seriously buddy. Feminism is defined as the EQUALITY of men and women. So what I'm talking about isn't feminism - its outright misandry. And if you knew the FIRST THING about the law, you could see that the GOALS of our laws and family courts has been ALIGNED with the goals of MISANDRY, and not feminism.

p.s. Your wife wants you to pull her hair when you fuck her. 

That is all.

How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong

March 8, 2011 By Hugo Schwyzer 404 Comments

Hugo Schwyzer explains how a handful of men are angry for all the wrong reasons.

When I was getting clean and sober in a Twelve Step program many years ago, there was one phrase from the literature that always resonated with me. We addicts have been, the book said, the “architects of our own adversity.” Yes, I thought the first time I read that. It’s time to stop blaming others for my own pain. It’s time to take responsibility.
That same phrase comes to mind when I think about Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). I’ve been crossing verbal swords with the MRAs for many years, particularly since 2004 when I began to develop a public presence as a male feminist writer and professor. I learned quickly that not all MRAs were the same; some offered thoughtful criticism while others offered only nasty invective. (Look up “Hugo Schwyzer Mangina” if you need evidence of the latter.)
As a professor who teaches courses on Men and Masculinity, as well as a mentor to many young men (and as a man myself, of course), I’m intensely interested in the ways in which men position themselves as victims. I’ve spent years reading the literature and talking points of MRAs and “fathers’ rights” groups. I’ve spent a lot of time in conversation with men who are going through divorce, something I’ve been through more than once.


My male students range in age from 17 to 70, from bright high school students taking their first college courses to retired professionals curious about gender studies. I meet with so many of them—jocks, geeks, gamers, drifters, ambitious future politicians and wary-eyed Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.


From so many of these men—online and in real life—I hear the same thing: the narrative of helplessness.

♦◊♦

The older, angrier MRAs describe a world in which women (and their male “collaborators”) have usurped traditional male privileges for themselves. Men, they claim, are at a disadvantage in the courts, in the business world, in academia. The MRAs see public space in the Western world as increasingly feminized, and they fancy “real men” (in whose ranks they invariably include themselves) to be under attack from a dark coalition of feminist activists, cowardly politicians cravenly surrendering to the cultural left, and a media that never misses an opportunity to demean and belittle traditional men. It all provides a satisfying sense of being “under attack,” which is why many—not all—men’s rights activists use, absurdly enough, the language of oppression and resistance to describe their movement.

When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others.

These men feel victimized, they feel exploited, they feel ignored, they feel impotent. And those feelings are powerful. I don’t think these boys and men who turn to the men’s rights movement are lying about their pain. The problem is that they’ve completely misunderstood two things.
The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding. The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood.

"Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal."

{JB: WHAT? Our efforts to live up to being what society defines as a man: a breadwinner who successfully pleases his wife in most ways, are what is making us unhappy? So we should "learn" to be happy with unsuccessfully screwing our bread-winning wives? Have you ever spoken to a woman? WHICH ONE told you they want a sissy husband who makes nothing, but does all the cooking and cleaning!?!?!?!?  And of course, the girls in high school and college are ignoring the jocks and lining up to screw the "sensitive" guy who just wants to cuddle and talk about their feelings. Really Hugo? REALLY?} 

Whether they got it from their fathers or their older brothers, whether they learned it from peers or pastors, coaches or drill instructors, almost all American boys grow up learning the “guy rules.” As Deborah David and Robert Brannon first showed in their landmark 1976 book on men, The Forty-Nine Percent Majority, the rules are crushingly simple: Big boys don’t cry. No sissy stuff. Be a “sturdy oak.” “Be a big wheel.” “Give ’em hell.”

Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy).

{JB: No offense, but do you HEAR YOURSELF? Take those characteristics into the business world, or the football field or the battlefield and see where it gets you. CRUSHED. That's what. Why would women want to marry.... themselves!?!?!? They want someone to BALANCE those characteristics in themselves, NOT DUPLICATE THEM!}

When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others. This frantic effort to shut down a whole aspect of one’s potential isn’t caused by testosterone or Y chromosomes. It’s caused by the longing to live by the “man code.”

{JB: The man code barely exists anymore thanks to single moms raising boys without A FATHER FIGURE AROUND AT ALL, AND NO, THE FOOTBALL COACH DOES NOT COUNT. Emotional skills are FINE for men, when they develop them as they should, around the age of 32 or so, but for chrissake, don't RAISE THEM on emotional skills! And don't subdue their NATURAL AGGRESSIVENESS THAT MAKES THEM MALE! Don't subjugate the NATURAL MALE INSTINCT to that of FEMALE INSTINCTS! Just CONTROL AND SHAPE the male instincts to be CONSTRUCTIVE!!!  Women want AMBITIOUS MEN! That doesn't come with a big helping dose of SENSITIVITY!}

♦◊♦

Most MRAs agree that the “man code” exists and that it does great damage to young men.

 {JB: They do!?!? I put my son in martial arts where he gets to break boards and spar other boys. My son is the sweetest boy in the world and he LOVES FIGHTING. Why? HE'S. A. MALE. CREATURE.}

But they blame women for these cruel and limiting rules. According to many MRAs I’ve spoken to, it is women’s sexual desire for the alpha male that forces boys to compete ruthlessly with one another. “Women say they want one thing but choose another: they always go for assholes,” so many guys say. If women would broaden their sexual appetites to include “betas” and “omegas,” their reasoning goes, boys would feel less compelled to compete ruthlessly with one another. (The men’s rights activists tend to be wildly off-base about what women actually want, but that’s another topic.)

{JB: When in doubt I always trust science - you know, PROVEN FACTS! And the "wildly off base" comment about "what women want?" - cuz Hugo, the twice divorced hero knows - is a direct repeat of this snake oil salesman named DARWIN. Maybe you've heard of him? According to Hugo, Darwin was wrong and women secretly want sensitive lady boys.}

It’s a typical but tragic mistake: MRAs wildly overestimate women’s power, sexual or otherwise. Men, they insist, are helpless by comparison. But that claim ignores a long and unmistakable history of male domination in human history. And if there’s one undeniable truism about our species, it’s that the rules are made by the dominant group.

The “man laws” or “guy rules” were created by and for men. Historically, winning validation from other men has mattered more than getting sex or love from women. (If you don’t believe that, think for a moment about how hard boys will work to please a demanding football coach.) Males are raised to be “homosocial,” which means they’re taught to get their primary affirmation from other men rather than from women.

{JB: The men WHAT?!!?!?  Boys work hard to please the coach because the coach is an alpha and they want to be alphas - WHY!?!?!?! WHAT DOES IT MATTER!?!?!? CUZ WOMEN SLEEP WITH ALPHAS, YOU MORON. All of our INSTINCTS go directly to mating and procreation. IT IS MOTHER NATURE'S DESIGN!!! and has been for.... uhhhh... MILLENIA!!!  Any guy I know likes his time with his guy friends, but mostly we want to fuck a hot woman. That's got NOTHING to do with other men, other than setting us against them to compete.}

Working too hard for female approval just makes you a “mama’s boy” or “pussy-whipped,” and the frantic efforts young men make to ensure neither of those labels apply to them tells you all you need to know about who it is they are really trying to impress.

{JB: Again, YOU ARE BLOODY CONFUSED, PAL. What are you talking about?!?!  Men don't want to lose their self-respect and that's what happens when they are ultra-pleasing the females. The other men look at them and tell them they're working too hard for a woman's affection and all this effort IS THE RESULT of the woman not respecting them either. So they have no self-respect and no respect from women. Further, many of the boys of single-moms are "mamm's boys." } 
 

♦◊♦

So men are indeed architects of their own adversity. This doesn’t mean that each boy is individually responsible for his own suffering. But it does mean that the pain so many men feel from broken relationships, social isolation, and the gnawing sense of personal powerlessness is not women’s fault.

{JB: Its not ALL women's fault. It is the fault of SOME women. It is the fault of those women - and men, like you, Hugo - who deny boys their natural right to nourish their own NATURAL INSTINCTS and become the STRONG, HARD-WORKING, DISCIPLINED MEN women are naturally drawn to for food, protection, shelter, and love. Or else stop reading and just study WHAT EVERY SINGLE BODY OF SCIENCE REGARDING MALE-FEMALE MATING FOR THE PAST 200 YEARS PROVES.  Or else just go to a bar and ask yourself it the women wore clothes showing off their bodies because they are interested in a tender, emotional conversation.}

 It’s the fault of a rigid code that was set up eons ago, a code that many of us continue to perpetuate. Extricating ourselves from the emotional straitjacket the code forces us to wear requires taking responsibility for our own lives and choices. It requires letting go of blame. And it requires seeing that feminism—with its remarkable claim that biological sex has nothing to with our human potential—is the best avenue for our personal and collective liberation.

{JB: Now you're just being funny. Feminism - which has transformed into a male-hatred movement dominated by lesbians and ultra-fragile Adrea Dworkin-type rape victims - is NOT, by ANY STRETCH of the imagination, the best, or even the least worse, avenue for "our" personal and collective liberation. Liberation... FROM WHAT, Hugo? I'm not chained to anything! I'm HAPPY being a man and reveling in my male qualities. TRY IT OUT SOME TIME. Also, your wife probably hates men. I'm guessing a real masculine man hurt her badly when she was a girl, emotionally or otherwise, and so she has decided not to trust any REAL men. That is why she selected you, Hugo, a man far from possessing any REAL MANLY qualities of any kind; a man who now believes - despite dozens upon dozens of men TELLING HIM THE OPPOSITE - that men need to embrace their emotional, sensitive side, because it somehow has something to do with some mystical, spiritual, ascension into some kind of "higher being." This of course is the very definition of mumbo jumbo that has no basis in fact, science, or observable reality.}