Greetings!

Yes, there are bad women (and bad men) - but most women are fairly decent (as are most men)...

Welcome to the forum catlady55. While I agree with Marx, I do definitely see your point though. Most the women I know are selective as to who they like and dislike, and they put everybody into boxes. It isn't necessarily a bad thing but controlling a relationship to that level is often unhealthy and competitive. Guys get friendzoned and Girlfriends get dumped. Many men I know on the other hand are much more competitive in the workplace but when it comes to friends everybody they can relate to is a buddy...

Hello and welcome.

I have had many women down the years, say to me, exactly what you have said, concerning the attitude of women.

And women try to sabotage each other's relationships. Don't even get my started on that little problem. When I met my husband, I protected the relationship and didn't introduce him to any of my female friends until after we were engaged.

I used to hate them and have that I called the Dick Masterson effect, where I thought they shouldn't have rights. Back then I would have been classified as a chauvinist. Weird huh?

I don't hate women anymore but I DO think men are better in a way and I am tired of double standards.

Since my onsite reputation has already been unilaterally assassinated by our host, I suppose that leaves me free to say whatever I want with nothing to lose. So I want to comment on two issues that make male friendships very difficult: Marriage and homophobia.

On marriage, the topic could be even broader to include any man who has a full-time woman companion. I have lost count of how many men I have known with whom I have tried to make deeper connections or share activities, whose owned-and-operated reply is always some version of "let me check with (enter woman's name here)". And quite often I have seen friendships with such men disintegrate over time after meeting whoever is their significant other, and her disapproval of me and my autonomous and iconoclastic ways is so strong I can smell it. After that, it only takes being turned down for some kind of male fun like a hunt or a backpack outing once or twice before I get the point: he doesn't have the cojones to stand up to her and tell her he will befriend whom he chooses, and she is not to interfere.

And making it worse is the "Brokeback Mountain" effect. Two men who pursue a longterm companionship, watch each other's backs, give undying loyalty to one another, and always appear to help out in need (once referred to in the British Commonwealth world as being "mates") are almost unheard of today. Two men who are seen in the same car or walk into a restaurant together are assumed to be either gay or cops on a case.

It starts in the junior-high locker room, having to do with penis size and pubic hair growth, a male-instigated terror of disapproval from other men on sexual grounds, and it just gets worse as we grow older. I think that the homophobia drives men to be obedient and pliant toward their wives because the legitimizing effect of marriage establishes one's hetero orientation, gold band and all, and one no longer has to engage in ridiculous pranks (a la Mitt Romney) to prove one is "straight".

If men are to be truly free we must stand up not only to feminist dogma and its policy consequences, but to other men and their epidemic homophobia, to our wives and girlfriends over how we spend our time and with whom, and to ourselves and our implanted prejudices that drive us to seek approval over our sexual identities from others and not ourselves.

Quote from dinohip51

Since my onsite reputation has already been unilaterally assassinated by our host, I suppose that leaves me free to say whatever I want with nothing to lose. So I want to comment on two issues that make male friendships very difficult: Marriage and homophobia.

On marriage, the topic could be even broader to include any man who has a full-time woman companion. I have lost count of how many men I have known with whom I have tried to make deeper connections or share activities, whose owned-and-operated reply is always some version of "let me check with (enter woman's name here)". And quite often I have seen friendships with such men disintegrate over time after meeting whoever is their significant other, and her disapproval of me and my autonomous and iconoclastic ways is so strong I can smell it. After that, it only takes being turned down for some kind of male fun like a hunt or a backpack outing once or twice before I get the point: he doesn't have the cojones to stand up to her and tell her he will befriend whom he chooses, and she is not to interfere.

And making it worse is the "Brokeback Mountain" effect. Two men who pursue a longterm companionship, watch each other's backs, give undying loyalty to one another, and always appear to help out in need (once referred to in the British Commonwealth world as being "mates") are almost unheard of today. Two men who are seen in the same car or walk into a restaurant together are assumed to be either gay or cops on a case.

It starts in the junior-high locker room, having to do with penis size and pubic hair growth, a male-instigated terror of disapproval from other men on sexual grounds, and it just gets worse as we grow older. I think that the homophobia drives men to be obedient and pliant toward their wives because the legitimizing effect of marriage establishes one's hetero orientation, gold band and all, and one no longer has to engage in ridiculous pranks (a la Mitt Romney) to prove one is "straight".

If men are to be truly free we must stand up not only to feminist dogma and its policy consequences, but to other men and their epidemic homophobia, to our wives and girlfriends over how we spend our time and with whom, and to ourselves and our implanted prejudices that drive us to seek approval over our sexual identities from others and not ourselves.

Very well stated. Keep up the good work.

Since my onsite reputation has already been unilaterally assassinated by our host, I suppose that leaves me free to say whatever I want with nothing to lose.

That's just a tad unfair. We all say outrageous things when we're feelingy angry but this board tends to be fairly tolerant compared to most.

Personal insults are the most likely to get infractions but I'm not aware that you're guilty of that. Disagreement on political points may draw some strong criticism but it's not a hanging offence.

You have a fair amount of support for your views from men of similar age and cultural background. They hear what you're saying.

Please don't play the victim card. That's a devious female tactic.

P.S.

I have lost count of how many men I have known with whom I have tried to make deeper connections or share activities, whose owned-and-operated reply is always some version of "let me check with (enter woman's name here)". And quite often I have seen friendships with such men disintegrate over time after meeting whoever is their significant other, and her disapproval of me and my autonomous and iconoclastic ways is so strong I can smell it.

None of this social wrangling is new. Sixty years ago, the Beverley Sisters had a song called "Sisters".
The punch line in the chorus was:
"Lord help the mister, that stands between and my sister;
And Lord help the sister, that stands between me and my man".
Sixty years ago it was an amusing diversion. These days it's government policy.

No victimhood alleged, just recounting the facts. Red dots on my profile with an explanation that they represent the disapproval of "many" ought to speak for themselves. I know exactly how and why it happened, I have already forwarded my "no offense meant" message to the appropriate party, have not received the courtesy of a "none taken" reply, continue to get likes and follow-up comments from others.

This is so like the path I have taken for years in the company of homophobic, women-owned approval junkies so many men have turned into: one must walk proudly in the face of inevitable and tiresome disapproval, wearing the needlessly hurt feelings of other men as a badge of the honor which they deny to themselves. The position I am taking in this particular thread is that we are so busy looking for the specks in our sisters' eyes that we cannot see the buckets of sand we throw into each others' as brothers.

I am not making any accusations toward any individual that are not already corroborated by the condition of my profile on this site, and do not assume any specific cause for this continuing ostracism, but only want to point out how similar it is to dealing personally with men in the physical world, and how annoyingly close it is to the rigid political correctness so many here say they despise in feminism. The larger point is that movements just behave like movements, predictably and self-destructively, as soon as they start proudly calling themselves that. Personally I'd just rather identify some specific results as goals and go out and achieve them, and have done with all the rhetorical purification and party-line pageantry.

I have had this belief, for years, that men have been lied to about women to the benefit of society. Women are not sugar and spice and if you've ever seen women plot against each other (for the smallest of reasons), you feel ashamed to even witness it.

If we had taught young men the truth about women, the population would be much lower. In this way, feminism is hurting women by encouraging them to show their true nature in front of everyone. Daytime talk shows are an ugly site and female competition is more vindictive than male competition except in extreme cases.

Now, there are some women who don't sink to the lowest levels of hatred and jealousy but no group is ever 100% so it goes without saying (even though saying is necessary).

Brings to mind an interesting point. My favorite women are usually mothers and wives, but not because their lifestyle meets more with my approval. I always figured it's a woman's or anyone's own damn business what they want to be and do and not my place to assign anyone male or female a role to my liking. But women devoted to their husbands and families have a dignity and self-assurance that I respect much more than the trashy self-absorption that dominates the media such as the last poster was referring to.

Around where I live there are a great many Mennonite families, and I find myself quite impressed with the women. They are nothing like the Amish in terms of separatism or technological backwardness, and the only visual similarity is the men have beards and the women keep their hair up and make their own traditional type of dresses. But you ought to see the splashy fabrics they use, and the impressive homes and vehicles and work equipment they have, the most up-to-date and top-of-the-line available because as a people whose families are united, they are pretty visibly prosperous. (And the word is, the Victoria's Secret shops in Amarillo are full of Mennonite women shopping for sexy things. Just because they look and dress traditional doesn't mean they don't know what goes where and why, or how to use it.)

Long ago the book "the Feminine Mystique" identified the artificial gender roles of the grey-suited, horn-rimmed Dad trooping off to the office and the starched-dress-and-heels Mom staying in and keeping the perfect home, as the vision and the product of advertisers looking to sell cars and washing machines and televisions and real estate to the postwar young people settling in and enjoying their victory over tyranny. I still think the book was on point. Now I think that feminism is the same sort of marketing artifice, selling every kind of product designed to make women feel better about themselves, entertainment that makes them feel powerful and superior, financial services creating the illusion that they don't have to depend on anyone. It's all a lie, just like the Ward & June Cleaver image was sixty years ago. It's all about whatever it takes to sell soap.

And, as this thread is pointing out, the lies are turning women against women and men against men, as well as producing and exploiting a growing cross-gender war. And meanwhile, so many cultures exist right in our midst, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Native American, Amish, close-knit extended immigrant families, etc, etc, that put it in our face every day that the family and the sanctity of its future make dignity and prosperity not only possible, but practically inevitable.

We aren't at war with feminism, or at least we shouldn't be. The real enemy is greed and false promises of easy gains and the inflated value of the individual over the family. And the only ones who really profit from those lies are Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Hollywood. If this MRM ever gains any serious traction those same forces will hijack it and remake it in their image as well, unless we define somehow what it's all for, and not just what it opposes.

Well said, dino. Very interesting about the Mennonite women. I have seen to many of them myself.

On another note, feminism does give on a clearer direction in which to aim attacks; but you are right, the real enemy is the evil that makes up feminism.

Your damned right it's about greed. Getting women into the workforce created more taxpayers and lower wages. What's not to love about that on Wall Street?