I am not quite sure whether this is preaching to the converted or whether it's actual news. Needless to say that the article and commentary states the obvious and succinctly points out the hate that feminists promote just to elevate women generally. Women ofcourse in their opinion do no wrong, incapable of abusive behaviour or lying, they even deny that they make false rape charges in the 100,000's every year..

Blameless victims destined to enjoy even greater autonomy when Obama starts pandering to these male haters with the ignorance and denial only allocated to children and animals..

Men: The New Victim Group
By Stephen Baskerville

Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care
Kathleen Parker
Random House
$26.00, 215pp.

“The last thing we need in America is yet another victim group,” writes
columnist John Leo, “this one made up of seriously aggrieved males.” Yet
he devotes the column to the dangers of male-bashing.

Men seldom complain about negative “stereotypes,” from fear of appearing
petty. So Kathleen Parker has performed a valuable service in her fine
book about the increasingly male-hostile culture created by extreme
feminism. The relentless venom against males and masculinity – and its
impact on women and girls – is presented in readable prose with vivid,
often humorous anecdotes. In popular culture, men are portrayed as
bumblers, deadbeats, pedophiles, rapists, and batterers. Even boys are
deprecated beyond a joke, with feminist teachers declaring “I don’t like
boys” and feminist curricula trying to make them girls, plus T-shirts
urging that they be pelted with rocks.

The consequences reach beyond New Age Men in aprons and Lamaze classes. By
far the most serious fallout is the systematic destruction of fatherhood –
“patriarchy” in feminist jargon. Single motherhood is more than celebrated
in the popular culture; it is enforced in the courts. Public ridicule may
be sufficient for public figures like former Vice President Dan Quayle, who
do not subscribe to the fashionable orthodoxy that children can be raised
just fine without fathers, but handcuffs and jail cells are available for
private men who refuse to accept that their own children are just fine
without them.

Parker shows how families with fathers are more than a cultural ideal and
social necessity: They also “keep government in its place.” She exposes
repressive measures against “deadbeat dads,” including privacy and
constitutional rights violations of “Americans accused of nothing,” and how
this dishonest campaign is actually causing the problem it is supposed to
be addressing. While Parker’s emphasis is on culture, she transcends the
trendy but superficial “he said/she said” approach and highlights
government power: How easily “stereotypes” result in not merely unfairness
but incarceration.

To appreciate why this book is more than the mirror image of feminist
“whining” requires recognizing a fundamental distinction between unfairness
and injustice. It may be unfair that a woman can decide to abort a child
or not and that a man with no “choice” about the child he fathered must
then pay child support. But (even aside from the immorality of abortion)
it is not necessarily unjust, and it does not in itself threaten a free
society.

Criminalizing innocent fathers by seizing and holding their children
through divorce laws that allow them to the “treated like criminals by
family court,” leveling false charges of ill-defined “abuse,” confiscating
their homes, gagging their voices, forcing them to confess to crimes they
did not commit, demanding that they pay for it all under the guise of
“child support” – and all this on pain of incarceration without trial –
constitutes government repression. It threatens not only the families and
social order but the privacy and freedom of us all.

Though sugar-coated on Oprah and Dr. Phil, what this book exposes are the
consequences of a political ideology that, like most ideologies, promotes
hate. Not only has this permeated every corner of our society and culture;
its ideologues are now set to assume unprecedented political power. Save
the Males offers an important contribution to understanding what we may expect.

---

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry
College and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers,
Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).

Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Associate Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
1 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia 20132

More...

I read this over the holidays.

I highly recommend Parker's book for anyone who wants to understand what the heck is really happening right now between males and females in the US.

As for the comment at the end of Baskerville's review: yes, we're going to be fighting a defensive action against what will soon be a new neo-Matriarchy in power. It will probably be one of the dimmest times in the history of our species since the time that we invented monogamy. But with perseverance we can overcome it and change it, as gloomy as it seems now.

Good article. Women want to "save males" because they ride off their back though. We should never forget that and especially never let them try and pull our gaurds down without checking that these women pass the acid tests..

This woman seems to fail on the child support test. It undoubtedly does threaten freedom when the state determines and lays down the nature and levels of "child support", in precisely the same way that removing fathers does..

While she does well to recognise the importance of "male headship" (reading between the lines) in order to hold back the state, i fear she may well still have at least one leg still on the other side of that fence..

Now, if she could just sort those few problems out, she may well be able to get to the position where writers like Melanie Phillips are..

This review I wrote for Amazon is already posted - but here is is again, just for grits and grins if naught else. Ohso.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

SAVE THE MALES
why men matter - why women should care

A review of the new book by Kathleen Parker (Random House 2008)

Kathleen Parker has delivered a tour de force of insight about the current and prospective state of Gender Relations in modern America. That she has done so with genuine respect for both Men and Facts, and in a manner that many Men will find both intellectually refreshing and stimulating, makes her work all the more important a building block.

Although she avoids use of the term Misandry (which I define as Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) with the exception of referring to one Son's feminist grade school teacher as "Miss Andry", Parker provides considerable detail of the BAMN BAMN (Bash Men, By Any Means Necessary) ideology at work in our gender toxic culture.

However, she manages to avoid many of the pitfalls of other authors focusing on the trivial, and whenever it seems as if she is going to rehash previous tabloid trash (ie: the Paris-Lindsay-Brittany axis of evil) - she manages to redirect the book in to areas where her voice is all the stronger for the silence of others. For instance, her analysis of Gender and the Military is quite laudable, even for those who don't agree with all she says - if only for the fact that she talks common sense about subjects that are so taboo, it would cost the career of any serving officer to breach them.

In many respects this is the finest, and last, word from Women about Men's Issues. Not only has Parker staked out clear and defensible positions for important issues on the Gender Wars Battlefield (Fatherhood, Procreation, Equal Rights, Discrimination, Harassment...)- but done so as one who is not a combatant seeking to trash Men for fun and profit (unlike those `stiffed' by other authors) and in fact as a Mother who Loves Her Sons and sees nothing contradictory in the term "Good Men". Perhaps one day Male Authors will have the same opportunity to Frankly discuss Gender Issues and still be published - although Parker's book is being "Back-Shelved" by major retailers who keep it from public display.

In the end it is this connectedness to Men that brings the Humanity to Parker's book, and she helps remind both Men and Women that We are Not Enemies but rather Partners - even if that is considered Heresy by the Radical Gender Feminist Power structure running the victimization scam for fun and profit.

Perhaps the true power in Parker's book is that Men and Women can read it and not be angry at each other, although their perspective of Radical Gender Feminism may be irreversibly altered. That and the fact that her book is a `going forward' view - and not the standard `Death to the Patriarchy' demand for retribution that passes for feminist critique.

One `near' omission was the lack of discussion or the influence of the `non male identified' wing of radical feminism (I don't like to embarrass residents of the Greek Isle of Lesbos by referring to these deeply hateful hyper militant Misandrist types as `Lesbians' - seeing as there is a lawsuit in Greece over use of the term right now). However, under a chapter sub heading "Isms & Ologies" she does say in reference to a feminist book dealing with such types that it was a : "distant early warning that feminism was being hijacked by women who were not precisely interested in bonding with the opposite sex."

In closing I would say that it was another quote that Parker Included on the evil nature of political correctness (showing her not afraid to share wisdom from others), by Theodore Dalrymple from "Frontpage" Magazine that I found most impressive - if only because it showed her as someone not afraid to touch the central nerve at the heart of such Censorship Pogroms - and expose it for the hateful Misandrist fraud it truly is.

Dalrymple explained:
"In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade of convince, nor to inform, but to Humiliate; and therefore the less it corresponded to reality the better.

When people are torced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself.

One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control , I think that if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

Whether you agree with her or not, Kathleen Parker has certainly set out her arguments in a manner that invites analysis, and only offends those Misandrists who already know the answer to all Gender Issues = BAMN BAMN.

Keep preaching Pastor Cj. The converted need reinforcing and passers-by hear the sermons that they otherwise would not.

Let's not condemn allies out of hand.

Parker has reached more people with a more comprehensive message than most MRAs have. She is a woman and other women listen to her.

They like the singer and hear the song.

They don't like us and don't listen to our music.

So, she ain't perfect. Neither are you. Or me.

I don't want to pick a fight with you Haahoo. But I do take issue with this 'headship' bizzo.

This 'male headship' focus is all too often pushed by MRAs when it is NOT a 'Rights' issue.

I see no rationale at all for handing 'headship' of a household over to the 50% of men who are below average intelligence and cannot tie friggin' shoelaces. Damned if I would be a woman subject to the 'headship' of some thicko. I can understand women in this matter.

The same can be said for women's dominance in the home. I see no rationale for women's traditional egregious dominance in the household. A similar 50% can't be trusted with a dust pan and brush let alone a household budget or leadership of children.

What ever happened to Merit?

Where does 'capacity' come in?

We men must cast a few motes out of our eyes before we make ridiculous demands and take the focus of our rights.

I see her as an ally, indeed..

But, I always put a "caveat emptor" clause on females who seek positions in the MRM as they are often coming from a different perspective and have different underlying motivations.. The same can be said for men who have previously been supporters of the feminist ideas..

I believe the greatest motivator for the vast majority of humans is FEAR.

What do women fear? (intelligent women like this writer who can see the writing on the wall before most..)..

They fear that men will "give up the ghost" and down tools.. This would mean NO ABILITY to access the formidable "Labour excess" that men can create when they are motivated..

FAMILY is one of the greatest male motivators, men will WORK HARD for their family, but if they are denied their family, they will possibly lose motivation as can be seen..

Men are the horses that pull the plough, if they were to lie down and refuse to work, then, what will women do? what will society do?

The fate of society would be similar to that country that legalised cannabis, then realised no one was coming to work anymore..

One can often detect where primary interests lie by the CHILD SUPPORT test. If a person is more concerned about ensuring men "live up to their responsibilities" in the manner of providing CASH than they are about CARE then they give the game away..

The CS issue is critical to understanding how folk think and is a major tool of shaming used by the statists (I wont say feminists because on this count STATISM is the ideology that is more demanding of paternal slavery than feminism, which in many ways sees the STATE as being the only truly responsible entity for the future generations, as makes complete sense if one accepts the basis of their ideas..(which I personally dont!, but the point is that if the state has all the power, it must accept the responsibility if it wishes to be seen as a "fair" master))..

I have seen many excellent women in the movement and from my own personal perspective of how things should be moving, it seems I definately know more women who could be said to match my views in all regards (in word at least) pretty much tab for tab.. than blokes..

I deny that I am imperfect, as one of gods creations we all are in our own way, but I confess I may not be one of the best role models for the MRM as its not precisely where I am coming from. I prefer the family orientated anti-state perspective and am not overly concerned with labels such as "feminist" etc, prefering to take folk issue by issue and on deeds more than talk..

The problems we have in society, that manifest themselves in broken families etc, cannot be fixed by simplistic repair of bad law and ideas like "presumption of equal parenting following seperation"..

At that point, the branch is already off the tree and the fix is very hard..

The problems stem from the culture of PERVERSE INCENTIVES that the STATE creates, one of the major ones being the CHILD SUPPORT con that in many ways GAURANTEES mother's security while at the same time plunging many fathers into a hopeless pit they strive to dig themselves out of beneffitting no one but the STATE..

Divorces have been rising, or more to the point. relationships have been failing, with each new perverse incentive announced by the state..

Until the cause of the diarheoa that is dumping our sustenance through its own arsehole is sorted, we will keep trying to wipe our arse forever.. But, we will still run of of bum fodder periodically and when we go for fresh supplies, we show a pair of caked strides to the world in court..

What you say would make sense percy if it was not for a few basic facts that I am sure you will concede..

Firstly, women MARRY UP.. Therefore they are not going to be in a relationship with a "thicko" who is giving out silly orders anyway are they?

They have the choice of who they marry, and indeed do not have to, they can, if they wish, have kids alone..

Secondly, if a man was in any doubt about his abilities compared to his "better half" in any respect, he would, thicko or not, concede to her and delagate the responsibility to her, as it would be "best man (woman!) for the job!"

Male headship is a TOKEN position, a FORMALITY, more than anything, every fool knows women really run the damned show in the home!!

I think men are evolved for this role, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY and not one I wish to cede to the state, which would be the case if women were to head families (and if you think two "equals" can come to any decision without the casting vote of a third party, well, whats the formula for that impossibility? Men chivalrously back down to womens nagging faster than a speeding bullet if they cant get the last word..)

Thirdly, its not a "rights" issue is it? Other than a natural one that would exist in the abscence of the state wieghing the game against men and for women..

What "rights" can exist in the family anyway regards headship and leading the family?

If the state is to provide them, then we have handed our balls to the state and given up..

The only alternative to male headship is female headship, or, state headship.

If you dont want to head your family percy, then decide who will, the good lady, or the state..

Seems that most MRA's will plump for the state..

Not me, id rather do whatever the bitch I know wants than what a bunch of evil parasites tells me!!

But, my terms are clear, in my home, I am the boss, because its my home, my family, my empire, my "pride"..

One cannot have two bosses of equal status when one is dealing with such as serpent of many heads as the state..

The state likes that dumb assed idea of "equality" because it allows them to divide and conquer by playing on the weakness of each "equal" individual..

For "equal" we can almost always assume "the woman is dominant and makes all the decisions".

The reason for that is because the STATE has created legislation that ensures that the WEAKER and more easily persuaded party is the one with all the power..

Lets face it, women only have to lock their legs together for a few days and refuse to speak and men will concede anything..

Because, there is NOT A DAMNED THING a man can do about it as all his avenues that would succede have been criminalised..

I am enjoying this, Hahoo.

I gave you rep for the previous response and I would give more for this if it would let me.

Even though your arguments are weak.

Yes, most do try to marry up, but that is no guarantee that a thicko isn't just a tiny bit higher than she is.

And there are many men who do give 'silly orders'.

Maybe, just maybe, this is the era when men get the message and STOP marrying down.

Men have been marrying child-brides for far too long. It hasn't worked. The greedy child-women have taken huge advantage. Men must STOP and wake up and seek Adult women. (Adult as in mature - which has little to do with reaching 18 or even 21).

Hah ! If t'were only so. A thicko is even less likely to concede or even doubt. Hubris goes a long way and produces a lot of sins of ommission as well as commission. There are plenty of non-thickos that have hubris too.

Evolution is a catch-all for the most ridiculous 'proofs'. I am surprised at you Haahoo!

Sure we men have a responsibilty but is it to always lead? Most men could not lead a pack of boys into a pub. Our responsibility is to know ourselves. Our responsibility is for what is best for our families. That needs more insight than leadership of others.

Two equals - who are smart and loving with one another - can more easily come to agreement than two hubristic 'wannabees' fighting for dominance. Both can appeal to 'what is right', or even, 'what is best in the circumstances'.

Men's 'chivalry' is an age old cop out which has constrained men. Self-made chains.

No it isn't. That's a cop out and you need - WE need - to come up with a few more alternative options. The State must NEVER be considered as one of those.

The evil parasites can butt out. The 'bitch' can be told "NO". And given a reason that is both reasoned and resaonable. By considering her to be a 'bitch' means the field is lost and the allied parties scattered.

It is for all of us to lie in the beds of our own making. Or beds made by others when our backs are turned.

Your 'Pride', as with many others' is easily turned to hubris, and comes right before a fall. As all too many of us know.

Maybe they are, which is why there is much to be gained by developing them!!

I have not slept for a few days and have a manic temperament and often my keyboard works under direct control from parts of my mind that I dont recognise as my own.. Such parts of my mind that normally control other parts of my body that I have now worn to a frazzle and need to recover!


So, if you see flaws, point them out, as I shall in your responses, but what is probably the case is that we simply see things a bit differently due to our positions, but that should not prevent us from identifying that we seek to have authority, as men, fathers, husbands in an equal partnership with the mothers, using our talents, to represent our families interests against the controlling state and seek the same for all parents..


Her dad should be offerring her guidance, if such a thing was possible!!


I find it hard to think of what order a man could give that would be silly, not because there are not an infinite number of them, but, well, who is to judge what is "silly" and how much does it matter?

Women are also prone to making demands, giving orders, indeed, I get directly ordered on a regular basis to do all manner of silly things for one of the mothers of my kids, just to make her feel more secure..


One would think that a man would marry a woman that suits him, the problem is, if a man cannot have the respect of the woman, he is doomed from the outset..

Men seem more interested in avoiding marraige now though and who can blame them?


Womens worlds and natures change radically when they have kids, also, its is likely to be a very difficult time and also the time when the state really starts to have a massive impact upon the family, as they sure do have that overwhelming controlling nature where kids are concerned!

I have not seen much evidence that women improve with age, quite the contrary, seems they can play the child well into their 30's, indeed they become better at it with practice and with the new powers they have as mothers they can lead a man on a merry dance.. Every aspect of marraige is played out under the ever present threat of what will happen if sir does not comply with madam.. that is how it is now, with fathers relegated to "disposible" status even in marraige. One good thing about young women is that they are more easily adjusted to how one would like them to be, and since I am lazy that way, the easier the better!



I think most people are aware of their relative intelligence etc, compared to those they associate with. It is hard to know what issues cannot be dealt with by means of the smarter person employing logical thinking, though of course, sometimes folk just like to stamp their feet and demand they get there way, which is something that should be ascertained prior to marraige one would think! Thickos are not usually good at hiding their flaws!


Not sure what you mean. I was thinking of the fact that under the commonly accepted principle of democrasy, two equal votes that oppose cannot come to a decision without a third party, be it the judge or the coin..

Not always to lead, but under ideal circumstances to make the appropriate decisions, or to delagate them. For the benefit of our families. To be able to cut the arguments short with a quick decision, "yes, we can afford to spend £4k on that car you want" or, "no", or "whatever you want dear, just make sure you can afford it.. but dont coming asking me to bail your debts out!"..


Sure, but the problem is, many women dont respect men and simply dont listen, they also are of the opinion that "shut up" is not the final word.. So much these days is about the fighting for dominance that women do in the home, because they are of the opinion that they have that "right" to be heard, even if they want to jabber on for 20 hours a day..

I find women to be happier in themselves when they know their place..

Maybe, but women demand it in many ways and every man has his own version of it..

I know i cant compete with women in arguements, because they dont make sense to me, owing to "femilogic"..

There is a saying "when you win an argument with a woman, you lose!"



The state DOES claim it though now, which is very undermining..
The wider family is a good start, but, since the state has put the boot into that for most of us, or they are just dead or good as, i see it as being as i said, we need to identify a hierachy, two way traffic of course, but, i think women naturally WANT to look up to the man they married, they dont want to feel responsible for everything. Division of labour and decision making always helps, but I also think that the idea of an "equal" headship of the family can only work on the whole if men are in charge of ensuring it usually, although some men many cede this to women, in which case they will likely end up divorced or banckrupt if they are not careful..

Indeed, it is possible to largely ignore the state but reality is that once a woman is identified as "bitch" then well, what are the options? Just going along with her will buy time, and that is all.. But she is the one with all the power, because the state will give it her.. When the bitch becomes intolerable, its game over, but she will still have it all her way, just that sir will not be seeing his family under ideal circumstances..




aye.
I was thinking more in terms of the Lion and his pride! I dont actually have much "pride" in what I have achieved family wise, as I have hardly been able to have much influence, such is the nature of life these days..

Apart from sperm donation, I have not really been able to do much..

I guess my ideas of male headship have led to me delagating everything to the mothers till I have not real role anymore!!

Which goes to show, its not some "tool of oppression" its my way of keeping some semblance of sanity!

But since i own everything, and have control of all the money etc, I guess its easy for me to take that position.

Most young men are not in such a position and that is why I promote the idea that for marraige, it is best that the man has the authority to face the world, and indeed that the woman understands this, but, since many women are so much better off financially and "empowered" its looking very grim for young men..

The power of "headship" may be the only power they really have at all, and it aint really anything other than token anyway, an "argument stopper"..

I hope so, but because of the sheer scale of the task at hand, it could be our grandsons that first see any real benefit.

Just saw a very negative customer review on Amazon:
If anyone who read it and liked it could add a review that would help sell the book.