Sunday, August 3, 2008

Feminists and Guilty Redux: Are Men that Evil?

Now, when I was just a little boy,
Standin' to my Daddy's knee,
My poppa said, "Son, don't let the man get you
Do what he done to me."

'Cause he'll get you,
'Cause he'll get you now.
---Born on a Bayou

I have often seriously questioned that the majority of pedos are men, even though women take a more "seductive" style approach while men are more of a "hunter," loosely speaking. Considering how many articles of women having sex with underage boy and girls, eventually the truth that women are just as sexually abusive will come out.

There's a similar thing about serial killers. While men are more methodical or "stalker" types, a good deal of black widows, angels of death, and women who kill for money or vindictiveness over time, while using more indirect means like poisoning men and children. They are not typically classified as serial killers say like a Night Stalker or BTK murderer. Even though women are capable of repulsive crimes, including ripping a baby out of womb, cannibalism, and blood ritual murder. As sensational as it sounds, they only make headlines once in a while, while a killer like Ted Bundy or The Son of Sam get the attention of the media because they slay pretty, young women.

The one thing feminists got right to some extent is that men are fit for battle and fighting. That also should scare the living shit out of them: we are good at it. From anything to the CQC I practice all the way up to bombing the piss out of another country leaving destruction in that wake, men are "built" for war more than women, generally. But this doesn't provide the whole picture.

If men were so horrible concerning warmongering and being anti-woman, however, we would be utterly dominating them and leaving them in chains and shackles if they didn't obey, and do terrible crimes to them if they didn't meet our whims. Most men are not like this at all, but if you read feminist rhetoric you'd believe otherwise. Considering the protections and great license Western women have, they are utterly full of it. Nothing in Western culture sanctions slavery of women and systematic abuse. And men generally find it repugnant.

Even if men are excel at battle and combat, it doesn't mean women are any less violent, or inherently less so internally. Deep down, most men, even teenage street punks are aware of the ramifications of moderate to extreme violence and that it's not pretty. Most men are actually reluctant to engage in long term skirmishes and military excursions as they are to wail away in a bar fight despite claims of gung ho male bravado. There are always consequences and risk, and going headlong is done with either deliberation or as a last resort when all options are exhausted.

Not to go on a tangent, but I rarely have met a woman that has ever really needed to worry about urban altercations and meeting the reality of getting seriously injured or killed, unless they already live in crime-ridden areas. The brutality that R's son personally experienced [edited here for anon purposes---me] is one of many examples of what has happened to young men; it's a reality that most women are shielded from and probably will never happen to them their entire lives. As far as DV, it's rare when it's a one-way street and I've already discussed how women instigate and continue that cycle a few times.

Feminists, all to ready to spread fear and demand men change, act as if they get the brunt of the raw deal, and when men are locking horns with other men, they eschew the complexities of male violence and mock and scoff at it---including not understanding saving face and unleashing anger rather than be shamed and humiliated. Rather than examining the roots of a severe problem, to paraphrase Willard's character from Apocalypse Now, they try to place a bandage on a gaping wound in order to mask the truth in hopes that men will clean up everything and it will go away.

With women, it's easy to judge men on the sidelines and possess an attitude of smug self-righteousness when you are sitting on your fat ass watching American Idol and blasting men as cowards because they don't allegedly fight for home and hearth (usually a political or religion rationale trumped up by politicians). Women rarely take the blame for instigating war and men fighting for agendas that are often illusionary and elitist-driven, all the while women are usually safe and sound unless their own home turf is attacked. Anyone from the UK feminists in WWI to Hilary Clinton have pushed men into fighting for causes with no thought of ever sending their daughters to possible death and slaughter . . . only their sons. And you can forget, as Ronnie James Dio sang, "even mother's a solider now . . . " being sent on the front lines in a significant amount.

And make no bones about it, there are women create their own vicious warriors, and feminists fail to understand that anything from single mothers to so-called "traditional" women, that if they don't want men to be too hardened and forceful, they have to comprehend their hand in the deal in fashioning young men, from gang members to legitimate misogynists. IF women who find they are raising young men in this fashion actually do this is yet to be determined. Shifting the blame and pointing fingers is hard to give up. I'm not defending venomous criminals---far from it---but they started from someone and somewhere.

The hand the rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

I seriously believe if that men en masse became passive overnight, women would up the ante so badly on men that their provocation would eventuate into a far larger scale of their own violence and aggression with primal outbursts towards both men and other women that pales in comparison to how they behave now. Do I think that all women are extremely animalistic? The short answer is no. Do I still assert that women are capable of an unstable and virulent matriarchy if men consciously gravitated towards civil disobedience and refusal to fight for women and "culture?" The obvious answer I have is definitely yes.

Many moons ago I wrote a review of Neil Marshall's The Descent. While it's just a movie committed to celluloid, it's truth is still clear to me; without men to fight for women's honor and their protection, to be their white knights, engage in self-sacrifice for the benefit of women and guide them as, perhaps a Jungian psychologist would describe as the "male solar principle" an all female tribe would be as cutthroat and filled with deception and in-fighting as any amount of men could be. And when they finally realized their cohesion would save their own backs, that moment would be all too late with the maelstrom and chaos they caused, advertently or not.

(Obviously, this is from another forum, but I couldn't resist placing it here, regardless).