“Real Men” – Why Masculinity is Not a Character Defect


Judd Legume is an editor at Think Progress:

Only a Leftist would think that masculinity is a character defect.

Feminists and other Leftists will tell you (and tell you, and tell you) that we live in a patriarchy – a male-dominated society. Not just any patriarchy – The Patriarchy.

Feminism defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. As feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman writes, “The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.”[31] In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy is fluid and loosely defined.[32] It often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.[33]


In Chapter 10 of The Creation of Patriarchy, Gerda Lerner states that Man (male) found a way of dealing with the existential dilemma by assigning symbol-making power to himself and life-death- nature finiteness to woman. Lerner argues that class society began with the dominance of men over women and developed into the dominance of some men over other men and over all women. Thus this the very process of class formation incorporated an already pre-existing condition of male dominance over women and marginalized women in the formation of symbol systems. The symbol system established the ruling elite whom were the men in power.

As you might guess, feminists don’t care for The Patriarchy.


When we use terms like “real man”, “manhood” and “masculinity” we are referring to the physical and character traits that we associate with maleness. The term “real man” specifically refers to the idealized perfect male – the social expectations of the gender role of males in our society.

According to feminist theory, long ago men got together and conspired to oppress women. Our forefathers set things up for the benefit of men and to the detriment of women. They did this because they were rapey sexist pigs who hated wimmins.

The truth is somewhat more complex.

If you believe (as I generally do) in evolution and natural selection then you believe that all life in the universe started out as simple one-celled organisms and that these organisms gradually became more and more complex. There is ample evidence in the archaeological records showing that this has taken place. Whether or not it was the result of random chance or intelligent design is still open for debate.

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few million years. Life on Earth started about 3 billion years ago. Modern humans (aka homo sapiens) first showed up about 200,000 years ago. Human civilizations, on the other hand, are only about 10,000-12,000 years old. What we call “history” is even less than that.

In evolutionary terms that is not even the blink of an eye.

For most of human existence our ancestors wandered around looking for food. When the Neolithic Revolution came along 10 or 12 thousand years ago our ancestors began to settle down and start growing food. This was the beginning of civilization.

In between the days of the hunters and gatherers we evolved into a very complex society. This was not one big centralized process, it was a lot of little societies, cultures and civilizations evolving at different speeds in different places. There was a certain amount of interaction between them. At times they were in conflict with each other. At times it was survival of the fittest.

Our current society/culture (American/Western Civilization) is the direct descendant of the winners. Those winners include ideas like democracy, capitalism and the rule of law. They include values like liberty and justice.

Along the way we had to deal with some bad ideas that were undesirable genes in the cultural gene pool, like slavery and racism.

During the process of cultural evolution we developed ideas about the proper roles of men and women in our society. We also developed laws, customs, mores, principles and other rules that define how people should act. This includes obligations and duties as well as privileges and benefits.

No one controlled this process. No one gender controlled it either. It was a collaborative effort that took place down thru the centuries and millenia. It growed like Topsy. It also changed as technology developed.

From time to time things got out of whack. There was a time when slavery was considered proper and necessary. At some point the general consensus changed and slavery was considered a bad thing. But slavery was still in existence because not everyone agreed it was bad and some people were economically dependent on it. We fought a war to get rid of the slavery gene in our society, and then another longer conflict to get rid of the racism gene that went with it.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century the existing laws, customs, mores, principles and other rules that defined gender roles for men and women had gotten out of whack with technology and our and economic system. Our outmoded gender role rules were based upon an agrarian economy in the pre-industrial era. The industrial revolution had made many or those rules obsolete.

Along came Feminism and Progressive ideology. They started off with good intentions and focused on some real problems that needed fixing, like Women’s Suffrage and Jim Crow segregation. By the mid-Sixties the big battles had been won.

That’s when Second-Wave Feminism and blue collar liberalism turned into Third-Wave Feminism and big government liberalism and the proverbial baby got thrown out with the bathwater. Any “ology” or “ism” that does not account for human nature is doomed to fail.

Men and women are different. Those differences are not just cosmetic or learned. On the other hand, men and women need each other. “Equal” does not mean “identical”. Last but not least, there is a lot of overlap.

It is ironic that the same people who want to “celebrate diversity” think men and women should be identical. It is not a competition. We can glorify both masculinity and femininity without denigrating either. Nor does that mean we should force people to conform to masculine and feminine ideals. Freedom and liberty and part of our cultural heritage too.

People go to college and learn all kinds of wonderful-sounding ideas for the way things ought to be. Then they get to the real world and find out that it isn’t that simple.

If you start a new job the first thing you have to learn is how they do things. There is a reason that they do them the way they do. Even if it is not working now at one time at least their system did work. Until you understand the system you can’t fix it.

Before you decide to Smash The Patriarchy, you better have a pretty good idea of what you are going to replace it with. It took us 10,000 years to get here, so maybe we should not be hasty about abandoning what we have.

Last but not least I want to talk about the silly idea called “multiculturalism“. It is premised on the idea that all cultures are created equal.

Multiculturalism is the cultural diversity of communities within a given society and the policies that promote this diversity. As a descriptive term, multiculturalism is the simple fact of cultural diversity and the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometimes at the organizational level, e.g., schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities, or nations. As a prescriptive term, multiculturalism encourages ideologies and policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization. In this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”[1]

Multicultural ideologies or policies vary widely,[2] ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to.

Our culture (American/Western Civilization) is not the only culture out there. There are some others that are similar to ours, and there are some that are mutually incompatible with our way of life. Multiculturalism is cultural suicide. All cultures are NOT created equal.

E. pluribus unum means “Out of many, one”.


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Klown Musings and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to “Real Men” – Why Masculinity is Not a Character Defect

  1. The Klown says:
  2. The Klown says:

    Speaking of silly ideas:

  3. Lulu says:

    ISIS is going to “kill” multiculturalism in the US. The fact that these insane monsters came from wealthy lefty burgs who “tolerated” this stuff while it was festering show just how stupid it was and how gullible the multiculturalists were to begin with. Tolerating subcultures planning on beheading, torturing, and ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world is insane and especially if they expect to bring them into the greater culture at any cost. The fact that they blow up their own “host” cities like Boston or expect to run back and forth from Minneapolis to raise money, get medical treatment, recruit more fanatics, etc is likewise stupid.Why are they surprised? As progs try to turn the border of Texas into a cartel shooting range, or a straight shot into the US school population for every nasty contagion their idiocy is exposed. One culture, one world, one economy based upon “elite” homogeneous ideology is being swamped by failure. Their goal is to control all wealth and all of this crap they espouse is rationalization to do it. The silly “feminists” are just doing their part.

  4. HELENK3 says:

    the indoctrination of the wealthy over indulged has been around for a long time. they really do think they are above and beyond the consequences of multiculturism. In the mean time the rest of us pay the price of it. We can learn from all different cultures the good, the bad and the ugly. But embracing and enabling and excusing the bad is not good for the country

  5. Lulu says:

    Reading about the Scots Independence referendum in the past year has been fascinating. I have no opinion about if it will pass or if it is good for the Scots people either way. It started out with the political and economic establishment saying the most condescending and bigoted garbage imaginable about the very idea that Scots might want more self-determination. How dare they not genuflect to their betters. Bullying, threats, telling them they were savages and hillbillies, and all they were good for is labor and military service as canon fodder. The Scots national politicians who are part of the establishment joined in.

    It didn’t work. It reminded me of Progs, Obama Democrats, the US media and academia when they were riding high and controlled what they thought was important namely the wheels of bureaucracy and the media propaganda. They were so sure of themselves they didn’t even poll much. Scotland is such an inferior culture who would bother? Two weeks out they polled as a matter of form. Maybe to rub the separatists face it. Who knows? It blew up in their face. Again it reminded me of proggy Obama and his polling taking a dump. So Cameron and Gordon Brown (the big fat Scot failure) are supposed to do something! Maybe they can take the council from Rotherham to tell the Scots they are all garbage and should be happy with their lot. Or the “Old Stick” (what Scots call the queen) will beg. The morons in the UK media are even suggesting that another royal baby will make the Scots stay in the union. The desperation is thick. Anyway the vote is two weeks out and they have ZERO backup plan to bullying. The London bankers are having a cow. The rumor is that Edinburgh might become the new Switzerland in banking with favorable laws. The nasty comments on the UK news articles read like prog trolls. It is very funny.

  6. DeniseVB says:

    So, Ray Rice has been fired for hitting his finance who married him anyway ? I’m so confused about the “new rules” . I mean, he really clocked her in that video, then the way he treated her limp body …. and SHE MARRIED HIM despite all that? They both need help.

    • Lulu says:

      There is an entire subculture of women who idealize and go after professional athletes. They see status, money and glamor. It isn’t just money they are after but status and lifestyle. This also happens with other high status males such as doctors, lawyers, even ranchers in some communities. They often have idealized and unrealistic ideas of what that life entails and overlook severe flaws in these men.

      • votermom says:

        Gmta. Tweeted this yesterday

      • leslie says:

        Yes. What this young woman hadn’t counted on was abuse and then having an unemployed husband. I am not saying she deserves what she gets, I am saying that now that the “civilized” world has come down on Goodell and the NFL, Mrs Rice’s husband and abuser, is out on the streets.
        Of course, Rice can appeal for reinstatement. And given the rehiring of Michael Vick following his incarceration for animal abuse, Rice will most likely get his job back, as well. Janay (the wife), if she can hang on long enough, will most likely reap the whirlwind of this mess as well . . . money, status, and glamor – just as long as she can find make-up to hide the bruises and scars.

        • 49erDweet says:

          But if may be too late, anyway. The NBA lost relevance over a decade ago and now the NFL is rushing pell mell to do the same, Oh, they’re both still kicking and screaming, but barring a seachange of ethics and cultures from within, the die is cast. They are doomed to be treated as freak shows, and thus unimportant.

        • The Klown says:

          Lots of DV victims are financially dependent on their abusers. That puts them in the position of having to choose between being abused by their mate or by the system.

          On the other hand, in my experience most domestic violence is not one sided. It starts as an argument and then escalates. The women are not cowering in fear, they are in there pushing his buttons and they are often the first to use physical violence. The elvel of actual violence is fairly low. She slaps him, he slaps her back, he goes to jail. Those cases do not belong in the criminal justice system. BOTH people need counseling for anger management.

          The true abusers are far less common than DV advocates claim, but they are the ones who are truly dangerous. These are the guys who punch women in the face, choke them unconscious, and use other forms of serious violence.

          • No, most domestic violence does not start because a woman hit the guy first and the fight “escalated.” There are far to many instances where a woman is just used as a punching bag and even looking at him the wrong way (an irrational calculus) or for no reason at all gets you punched.

          • WMCB says:

            Women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men. More than 200 studies have shown this. One Harvard study showed that 70% of the time violence was initiated by the woman (I think that’s likely too high). Most studies show it to be at least equal. Lesbian relationships have just as much domestic violence as straight ones do.

            Men, due to their generally larger and stronger bodies, often do more damage. But domestic violence itself is NOT a male problem. It is a human problem, and very much a woman problem in at least equal numbers, if not more.

            The idea that domestic violence is only, or even primarily, a man-hits-woman issue is flatly unsupported by evidence.

          • The Klown says:

            My sons were three and five when their sister was born. They were bigger, stronger and older than her from day one. She started more fights than they ever did, and when she got hit she deserved it, but she deserved it way more times than she ever got hit.

            I taught my sons that they should not hit girls, but I wasn’t gonna let them be her punching bags.

            They worked it out as they got older, and now they are all really close.

          • WMCB says:

            True sociopathic abusers are rare, but very dangerous. Most DV falls into the “escalating argument that got utterly out of hand because neither party has much self control” category. Can someone still get seriously hurt in the latter category? Of course. And it’s often the woman, because a man can simply do more damage when he takes a swing. Biology.

            But saying that men should perhaps have the responsibility to be more careful re: domestic violence due to the ability to do more harm is not the same as saying men are more violent in relationships. They aren’t. The data doesn’t support that.

        • Constance says:

          Notice that Vick the animal abuser got a prison sentence and a bigger suspension from the NFL than Rice the woman abuser.

    • abc says:

      Chronic co-dependents (rich and poor) stick with their abusers all the time. It’s their mental illness that attracts them to the abuser in the first place. Most of us would run the other way against violently aggressive people. These women seem to be magnetized by them.

  7. DeniseVB says:

    Is this not assault too? Or a private family matter? Like I said, wtf are the rules ? 😀

    • votermom says:

      Here’s the rules:

      • 49erDweet says:

        It’s that first walking away part that is often sabotaged or short circuited by the smaller & weaker. Have seen many an attempt fail because of supplemental pleading. Almost never ends well, either.

        • votermom says:

          In dysfunctional relationships, if you want to break the cycle, you gotta take ownership of your actions. Stop just reacting.

          And it’s true, sometimes the smaller, weaker one is the more messed up one.
          Often an abused woman, after escaping an abusive relationship, will get into another abusive relationship with someone new. That doesn’t let the abusers off the hook. They’re all messed up in the head.

        • The Klown says:

          I was bigger and stronger than my abusive ex-girlfriend. I should have walked away early, but I didn’t.

          My second wife was verbally and emotionally abusive, and occasionally violent. I put up with her shit for nearly five years.

          • votermom says:

            Live and learn.
            Or just write a memoir and call it 50 Shades of Klown. ;P

          • Lulu says:

            I know someone whose first husband was verbally abusive. She was too. Her second one was physically abusive. She had two black eyes when she shot his ass in a six million dollar house. She wasn’t charged and has been smart enough never to remarry or cohabit. Some people cannot get along with the opposite sex and should give it up.

          • WMCB says:

            Lulu, my rule of thumb is that if multiple relationships have ended badly, AND your view is that it was utterly the other person’s fault and you are just an innocent victim, you’re full of crap. You have issues, and don’t need to be in any more relationships until you deal with them. Often people who have that pattern in romantic relationships have the same pattern in friendships – they all end badly, and it is ALWAYS because “the other person was an asshole.”

            Between boyfriends and a couple of husbands, I’ve had several failed relationships. In all but one case, I fully understand that we BOTH contributed to the mess. I did bad things, he did bad things, I responded badly to his bad thing, he then responded worse to my bad response, etc etc etc.

      • votermom says:

        Ahhhh!!!! I hate twitter typos!!!!

      • foxyladi14 says:


  8. elliesmom says:

    I agree with you to a point. I don’t think men rose to the top of the power heap with the total consent of women. Ancient women might have recognized the need to be protected while in their child-bearing years, but that wouldn’t have precluded their being part of the decision-making part of the tribe. Somewhere along the way men grabbed that power for themselves. It must be important to men to have that role almost exclusively theirs because it is their role in most civilizations, and it is the role they fight hardest to hold onto. Women have made enormous inroads into the male culture, and some of it has been welcomed. Most men have no problem with women behaving more like them sexually. They appear to have little problem with women becoming the head of a single parent household as long as men have little or no responsibility for its success or failure. They are willing, for the most part, for women to work along side them in low level jobs. The most resistance comes when women try to climb the power structure ladder. Women had a more difficult time breaking into jobs as police officers than as computer programmers. Women are second class citizens in our military in lots of ways besides not being allowed into combat. The hierarchy of our religious organizations remains almost exclusively male in nearly all of them. Women have a harder time rising to power politically. You could say woman “allowed” this to happen, but then you’d have to say slaves “allowed” themselves to be enslaved.

    I, too, believe men and women are different, and when those differences make a difference, as a society we should recognize it and use it to make things better for both sexes. But a lot of the “differences” people see really are social constructs set up to give advantage to one sex over the other. I acknowledge those advantages sometimes swing both ways. But we really do need to recognize that the balance of power is still very much in favor of men, and not just white men. While Amanda Marcotte’s claim that making dinner is oppressive to women is silly, if you step back and look from a distance, most world renowned chefs are men, and most everyday low level, put the food on the table, kind of cooking is done by women. Although it’s slowly changing, there are still a lot of schools where over 90% of the teachers are women, but the principal is a guy. I promise you it’s not because the female teachers want it that way.

    • The Klown says:

      Women had a more difficult time breaking into jobs as police officers than as computer programmers. Women are second class citizens in our military in lots of ways besides not being allowed into combat.

      The discrimination against women in the military and in law enforcement was intended to protect them, not to give men an advantage.

      Cultural change takes time. Some people (especially the young) adapt easily to change. Others have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Most people are somewhere in between.

      • elliesmom says:

        But whether the women wanted protection or not was not and still is not their decision. It’s a decision that’s being made for them by others. That’s what being patriarchal means. If I want a man’s protection, let me ask for it. Don’t assume I need it.

        • WMCB says:

          I disagree that all those decisions were made by men, though. The world before the 20th century was not one of ZERO power for women. Women utilized power in different ways than men, but it was by no means non-existent. Much of the gender role differences grew out of differences in biology and the necessities of child-rearing, which women understood just as much as the men did.

          When you speak of protections being decided on an individual basis, I agree. But societies develop protections/rules based on group dynamics, not just individual ones. Through most of history, society had a vested interest in protecting women. Women are not reproductively expendable. Men are. You generally, as a society, risk your expendable members in conflict and war and law keeping, not your non-expendable ones.

          I’m all for modern voting rights, career rights and choices, etc. I just object to the idea that all the differences in men’s and women’s places in society throughout past history were driven by deliberate male oppression, like some consiracy to oppress women. Nonsense. To some degree? In some cases? Sure. The entire story? Nope. It was mostly driven by cold hard reality.

        • elliesmom says:

          I think the hard cold reality is men protected women individually for biological reasons. To protect their own progeny. If you look at the animal world. male animals protect their own females. The female mates of other males, not so much. As women needed less protection for biological reasons, men still held on to the power they had amassed over time. I don’t think we can look at that today and not see how deliberate that became and still is. The men in the Catholic Church could give women equal power with a stroke of a pen, and yet they don’t. There’s no powerful role in the church too biologically risky for women. You don’t have to be a feminist who hates men to look at our society and see the patriarchy is real. The patriarchy hasn’t been biologically necessary for at least a couple of millennia. Social constructs have kept women in subservient roles, not biology. Allowing that women are the sex whose reproductive function requires a bigger societal investment is different than saying it makes us helpless and unable to participate fully in society in roles that confer power on the individual and the group the person comes from.

          • swanspirit says:

            I have to agree with you Elliesmom , after having read so much history , and personally experiencing the changes we have seen over time in our own society .

    • 49erDweet says:

      I generally agree with you, but for these reservations. First, the best boss I’ve ever had was a woman. Second best, too. Also the worst….by far. What most men want in a boss is consistency and fairness. What they want least is emotional dithering. (Sorry, it’s just a fact). My worst boss would postpone decisions until it was too late to perform the mission, demand overtime work to make up for it, and then throw out most results the next morning and redo everything. Drove us crazy. Not solely a feminine trait, agreed, but she considered it a benefit of her leadership style, not a handicap. Could never figure out why her best workers transferred out in two months!

      • The Klown says:

        I was raised by a single mom and I have an older sister. Getting bossed around by a female is nothing new to me. I have had female bosses that I respected and admired, and I have had male bosses I thought were incompetent.

  9. The Klown says:

    About 3:30 this morning three raccoons and my next-door neighbor’s two German shepherds had an epic battle 10 ft. from my bedroom window.

    The raccoons won.

    • 49erDweet says:

      Those opposable thumbs help, but I think it’s the masks that give ’em the edge. German’s always have problems with the unknown.

      • The Klown says:

        Two of the coons were smaller than the third. I’m guessing a mama coon and her babies.

        She was playing for keeps.

        • 49erDweet says:

          Also guessing the two shepherds were just big, oafish pets, not trained service animals. Once a shepherd undergoes serious training they are not easily thwarted.

          Which brings up……any TCHers have experience or comments on “doodle” dogs? Since we’ve become empty nesters and returned all the gate guard dogs to their family member owners, we’re thinking of a first ever “house” dog [must be w/o fur] so thinking of a mature Goldendoodle or Labradoodle. Comments?

          • lildoggy4u says:

            49er, I’m late to this party and just now catching up but wanted to respond to you.
            I have the most incredible dog. I didn’t get this dog by choice, it, as a small baby pup followed me and my beagle home one day after a walk.
            He was such a baby his balls had not fallen yet.
            He is a miniature Rat Terrier. I was never one for these smaller dogs but he is the most intelligent dog I have ever owned and I’ve had many. He’s quiet but protective. Short hair – I’d say he doesn’t shed.
            One encounter – a pack of dogs (mine) encountered a possum in the barbque grill one night. They were all barking surrounding the covered grill -its was pitch black outside. I walked out to check the noise with the Rat Terrier walking alongside since he’s loyally always by my side. He was still a baby. Immediately he passed all the other dogs, went under that cover, grabbed the possum, shook it violently into unconsciousness and laid it at my feet. I screamed with terror…..
            He’s an excellent candidate for you. A very well adapted house dog too.

          • 49erDweet says:

            He sounds perfect! Our problem is his fur. The poodle-combos breeders “keep” have hair, not fur, and in the allergy game that’s the winner……..and my honey needs hypoallergenic everything. We’ve always had dogs but they’ve always slept in the warm garage. We’re ready for a house dog with hair.

  10. votermom says:

    PSA: If you shopped at Home Depot on or after April 1st, they are offering 1 year free credit monitoring.
    (You don’t have to prove you shopped there, so basically anyone can sign up I guess)

  11. The Klown says:

    Once upon a time the cops couldn’t do anything about domestic violence unless the woman pressed charges. Then starting in the 70’s the laws were changed so that if the cops saw a visible injury they could make an arrest even if the woman didn’t want them to.

    Then in the early nineties (post-OJ) they passed laws that said the cops HAD to make an arrest when they saw a physical injury. Suddenly the cops were arresting lots of women for domestic violence. If both people had injuries they took them both to jail. Women’s advocacy groups FREAKED out.

    That was when the “primary aggressor” concept was born. If the cops showed up and both parties were injured, they were supposed to figure out who was injured the worst and take the other one to jail.

    • 49erDweet says:

      In the cop business you get to know your regular custoners……and they you. Used to get lots of calls on domestics where the V would say, “…and don’t send (name)”. “He’ll just arrest me, too”. Usually from a motor-mouth.

    • WMCB says:

      Societal roles are funny things. Many many problems arise when people tear up the rule books but still want “the rules” when it suits them.

      People want the advantages of certain positions in society but none of the obligations. It happens on every level. Women want the advantages of being “the weaker sex”, but none of the downside. Men want the advantages of being bigger/stronger, but not the responsibilities thereof. Politicians want the advantages of controlling the levers of power, but not the obligations to use it wisely. Elites want the perks and adulation for being upper crust intelligentsia, but not the attendant responsibility to look out for the interests of the lower classes and society as a whole.

      Social roles used to have both unspoken rights AND unspoken obligations. One can argue the wisdom of tearing down those roles (some indeed needed taking down a notch), but too often what we are ending up with is the role itself still existing, and the only thing that got jettisoned was the attendant obligations. Which is often, to my view, an even WORSE situation than the hidebound role you started with.

      • The Klown says:

        Men won the sexual revolution. We got lots of consequence-free sex.

        What did women get?

        • WMCB says:

          Oh, women got the same thing – lots of consequence-free sex as well. EQUAL! SAME!

          And that is an even and beneficial social transaction IF one believes that there is zero difference between men and women in regards to what they want/need from each other. IF that is true, then we should all be happy now, right? We are both getting something that we equally value, correct?

          Of course, if what women as a group want/need from men is not exactly the same as what men want/need from women, then we may have pretty much fucked ourselves over, big time. But you are not supposed to say that out loud.

          • The Klown says:

            Women have something that (most) men want. Particularly when they are young, men want it REAL BAD. They will do almost anything to get it.

            Once they get it, they don’t want it quite as much. Even worse, they start wanting it from other women. As time goes by, women’s bargaining position weakens.

            All of our traditional laws on sex and marriage were intended to protect women and guarantee that men would fulfill their obligations.

            So society said that women had to stay virgins until they were married, and once they were married they couldn’t have sex with anyone but their husbands. Men were supposed to be monogamous too, but more importantly they were required to support their spouses and any offspring. They were supposed to support their wives “until death”. No trading them in on younger trophy wives.

            Men got something out of the deal, and so did women. These rights could be legally enforced.

            Abortion, birth control, no-fault divorce and the devaluation of virginity and monogamy worked together to create a situation where men could get all the benefits with none of the obligations.

          • WMCB says:

            Exactly. And that doesn’t mean I advocate returning to the old “system” wholesale or uncritically. Nope.

            But there is wisdom in understanding that ALL massive cultural changes have both an upside and a downside. And that perhaps some balancing mechanism needs to be in place to ameliorate the downside. Was there an actual reason for the social rules (apart from just “menz are bad and oppressors”)? Likely so. So we need to look at re-establishing (in our own, more flexible way) societal norms that can at once give women the opportunities they lacked, but at the same time not tear down the concepts that actually protected us (and men) from destabilizing culture, family, and relationships.

            What I WANT is not to return to the 17th century – that’s just silly. What I want is to have an honest conversation about men, women, society, stability etc in our modern context. Something beyond the current “Everything old BAD! Everything new GOOD!” ridiculous simplistic paradigm that we are now operating under.

          • elliesmom says:

            I don’t for a second believe everything old is bad and everything new is good. But to believe men are going to sit down at a table and relinquish some of their power to women without a fuss is not understanding human nature. There is nothing women can put on the table that will make it attractive enough for them to do that. They already have access to consequence free sex. Women are already doing most of the child rearing and housework while holding down full time jobs. At this point, women have nothing left to bargain with. While some women want men to take care of them, a substantial number of women want a more level playing field so they can more easily take care of themselves. Women wouldn’t even be sitting down at that table looking for the same thing. When I went to “negotiating school”, one of the first thing we learned was how not to give all of your bargaining chips away before you get something in return. Women did that. I don’t believe men will give women political, economic, and religious power because “it’s the right thing to do”. There’s too much for them to lose and not much for them to gain. Would you if you were a guy?

          • votermom says:

            As a group, women, or at least feminists, do seem to suck at this whole negotiating thing. The whole intersectionality concept where you see feminists marchibg for gays, for min wage, for blacks, for every single lib cause while their own cause is left on the back burner. Buncha dimbos.

            I agree with you, EM, men who have power aren’t just going to give it up. Never figured out why women just gave away what power they did have.

  12. The Klown says:

    BTW – there is a reason I rarely discuss domestic violence. It is a sensitive topic for some people, and if you deviate from the politically correct “men bad, women good” orthodoxy, you will be goring some sacred cows.

    These days IDGAF – if what I say offends you then you’re just gonna have to get over it. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong (although I do think I’m right), I’m just not gonna STFU anymore.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Looks like Janay wants us to mind our own business anyhow …..

      “I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare, feeling like I’m mourning the death of my closest friend,” Janay Rice wrote. “But to have to accept the fact that it’s reality is a nightmare in itself. No one knows the pain that [the] media & unwanted options from the public has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret every day is a horrible thing. To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass [off] for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific.

      “THIS IS OUR LIFE! What don’t you all get. If your intentions were to hurt us, embarrass us, make us feel alone, take all happiness away, you’ve succeeded on so many levels. Just know we will continue to grow & show the world what real love is! Ravensnation we love you!”

      confirmed by: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-janay-rice-breaks-her-silence-describes-situation-as-horrible-nightmare-20140909,0,5216376.story#ixzz3Cp96s1v7

      • The Klown says:

        Very common is the women who tells the cops she wants him in jail on one day and then the next day she begs his attorney to get him out.

        • Lulu says:

          She wants the money and attention from the public but not the responsibility in their behavior and invasion of privacy that comes with it. HE and she are public persons and with that comes good things and bad things like the invasion of HER privacy. They were not in the privacy of their own home. They were in public and acting like dicks. Recorded on a security camera committing crimes against each other in a public space. Stop whining and accept responsibility like adults. You did this to your selves.

  13. DeniseVB says:

    I liked how Sonny Corleone handled his sister’s abuser….. despite having many character defects himself…….

  14. 49erDweet says:

    Where did you find that photo of me carrying a Big Gulp?

  15. votermom says:

    OT photo caption time!

  16. abc says:

    I am not condoning his actions, nor saying she deserved the violence. I will say, tho, that nobody talks about the fact that she backhanded him. Whether she had enough strength to really hurt him is beside the point. The intention was to hurt him emotionally at least. It was a nasty thing to do (too).

    • WMCB says:

      I’ve made that point as well. I fully agree with the old “men have to be more responsible in physical interactions with women, because they CAN do more damage” concept. What makes me angry is that the feminists want the “old rule” but don’t want to admit that they want the “old rule”.

      From a purely egalitarian standpoint, she attacked him physically, and he should have responded to her no differently than to a man who hauled off and hit him. I fully accept that the rules are different for men and women. The feminists want to have their cake and eat it too – vehemently denying that there is any diference, but demanding the protection of the “old school rules” when it suits them.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Assault is illegal, so why would a woman hitting a man get a pass? Enforce the law equally for both. No hitting ! We learned that in pre-school. It’s why I posted the Solange Knowles video above. Even though she was restrained, looked like simple assault to me.

        • WMCB says:

          I think legally it shouldn’t. I also think that so far as social norms are concerned, we need to understand that there are differences. I taught my girls and my boys not to hit anyone first, period. But I also taught my boys that they have a special responsibility where women are concerned, even if attacked – BECAUSE they can do more damage. I taught my girls that hitting a bigger, stronger man was foolish as hell, and they might be utterly shocked at the amount of damage a man can do if he decides to hit back. Don’t be stupid.

          My husband is 1/2″ shorter than I, and doesn’t outweigh me by more than 20 lbs. Guess what? He could kick my ass 6 ways from Sunday if he chose. Pound for pound, he’s simply stronger, and has more upper body leverage and force. He’s never laid a hand on me in anger, but I can tell you just from the goofing/playing/wrestling around we do that he is FAR stronger than I am.

      • abc says:

        I find little more putrid than the current class of feminists….they seem to be nothing more than a bunch of butt hurt, whiny pants, overly politically correct hypocrites. They give true feminism a bad name.

  17. SHV says:

    ” Whether she had enough strength to really hurt him is beside the point.”
    Legally that is the point. His actions were disproportionate to the threat and he should have been charged with battery, likely aggravated battery. Which brings up the question of why the fixation of what the NFL did or didn’t do vs why aren’t people asking whether the prosecutor and judge should remain in office. IMO, the most telling point of what a POS Ray Rice is, is his callous disregard for his girl friend after he had inflicted grievous bodily harm on her.

    • abc says:

      I don’t care about the legality of it. It’s wrong for either of them to touch the other violently..

      • elliesmom says:

        But whenever we talk about “self-defense” legally, there is always the concept of “proportionality” involved. Was the person defending himself justified in using that level of response? If someone half your size and weight slaps you, do you have the right to kill her? Is it right for her to slap you. Of course not. And if he had walked away, he could have had her arrested. That would have been a proportional response.

    • WMCB says:

      That’s the issue for me. I understand that she attacked him physically first. So in that sense, yes, he has a right to defend himself. But unless he’s an imbecile, he HAS to understand that hitting her back is just about lethal force (because of his physical capabilities), and like all lethal force, one has to be in fear of serious injury or death before one is allowed to use it.

      I don’t think her attack on him met that standard. Doesn’t mean she wasn’t wrong as hell, and entirely at fault for what SHE did. But the person with more force (for example, a gun) has a stricter standard to meet. An NFL player’s fists are disproportionate force. You don’t get to use grossly disporportionate force except in very narrow circumstances – usually defined as imminent risk of severe injury or death.

      • WMCB says:

        If she had been swinging a bat at his head, or a knife, the situation would have been different. But from what I can see, he was at no real risk of injury.

  18. WMCB says:

    Great article. I may have to read the book he references.

  19. HELENK3 says:

    still ranting.
    went to dmv, took enough ID to prove I was born here. did not take doctor who delivered me as he is no longer around. Now they say I need a copy of my marriage certificate. so I will have to get one from PA. It will cost $500. to register my car.Insurance is triple of what it is in California.
    Now i understand why so many drivers do not get a license to drive here. Got a 30 day temp license until I can get my marriage certificate

    • fernschild says:

      It’s a shocker, Helen, I know. The killer about a newer car is that the insurance is almost as much as the car payment. Co-workers from New York and New Jersey were shocked at the cost of living when they moved to Florida. And in the central part of the state, where I live, wages are plumb pitiful.

    • lildoggy4u says:

      Helen, we used to have state run offices that handled car registrations from courthouses around in the counties. Now the state has hired outside contractors to set up shop here. That’s when things got out of control thank you Rick Scott and our permanent Republican legislature. Just try figuring out your fee beforehand. There are additional fees for everything you can imagine. You never know what to expect to pay beforehand. Have you yet had to find a policeman to certify your car’s VIN number? we used to have to do that when we brought a car from out of state. I think your tag agency will do that now themselves charging you an impact fee for a out of state car on our Florida highways. At one time we had an impact fee well above $300. The Florida Supreme Court ruled against that and the state had to pay us all back. You could not purchase a car out of state without paying taxes twice plus the impact fee. Its hard to be poor here.

  20. leslie says:

    I just got another of those CNN “breaking news” emails. This time, it reads:
    “A day after being suspended from the NFL, Ray Rice texted CNN sports journalist Rachel Nichols, saying: “I’m just holding strong for my wife and kid that’s all I can do right now.” . . .
    He’s doing this for his “kid”. This makes my head hurt.

    • leslie says:

      If you’re “doing it for your kid”, you don’t hit your wife or girlfriend or anyone else just because you can. If you’re “doing it for your kid”, you set a good example in the first place.

  21. gram cracker says:

    A comment somewhere said that it looked like the fight started when Rice spit in Janay’s face, then she slapped him and then he decked her.

    When my young grandchildren hurt me accidently or even on purpose I don’t respond by pummeling them. Sometimes it takes a lot of self control to not strike out reflexively when they really hurt you. It makes me sick to see how many kids are abused and murdered by their parents and mom’s boyfriend for crying, peeing or any number of “offensives” that set their care givers off. Janay should be concerned about her daughter being around someone with so little self control.

    (I haven’t seen the video since my Mac OS X operating system isn’t supported by Apple, Google, etc. and I can’t view videos anymore without updates. grrrr! I can look at videos on my iphone but it is a pain to use to post comments.)

  22. mothy67 says:

    I had to hit one hundred times to get to this page. I would have given up but brat takes karate.with a friend.

Comments are closed.