Further thoughts on the Emasculation of America.

My last post on the subject got quite a few posts, which in turn stimulated some more random thoughts, and helped me to help understand some of my own reactions. Before I get to the meat though a couple appetisers.

Jeff over at the conditional axe, made an observation that I think in many ways, underscores the damage feminist philosophy has done

I do have a hard time envisioning her in any kind of Donna Reed
role.

Now think about that. Granted Barda was a hardcore, bad ass, take no prisoners warrior. But why should that preclude her from also being a Donna reed type? If we assume that by "Donna reed type" Jeff meant a stereotypical 50's housewife who cooks, cleans, and manages to do so wearing pearls, then perhaps there is a case to be made.However she wasn't portrayed as any such thing in the comic. Rather both Scott and Barda were portrayed as two people who shared in the domestic chores, and in fact used their day job, to determine the split of said chores. So i am left to interpret Jeff's comment as meaning he can see Barda ever stepping in a kitchen at all, as it somehow contradicts with her "warriorness"?

But does it? The Israeli army was among the first to not only allow women to assume combat roles traditionally reserved for men, but to actively encourage it. Yet many full time active duty Israeli women are also mothers and wives, and many return home to cook and clean for their families. They see no contradiction between warrior credibility and domestic bliss, because there isn't one. Only when one has drunken enough feminist kool aid does one even see such a contradiction. Only when one assumes that traditional domestic roles are somehow incompatible with more "progressive and gender neutral roles" does that opinion even form.

Let me put it this way, I am a very "manly" man. I don't merely mean this in a behavioral way but also in a purely biological way. I have an extremely high sperm count, (more on that in a minute) am quite large, with a full manly beard and thick dense hair. I have very bushy eyebrows, thick bones, and a fairly well developed musculature for a guy who spends 10-12 hours a day in meetings and negotiations. Nothing about me reads as feminine, a gay friend of mine once described me as " a perfect fantasy of masculine virility" The language people usually choose to associate with me is across the board traditional male, IE "cowboy" "ballsy" etc.

However none of this precludes me form helping out around the house. Every weekend I wake up and cook my wife and I breakfast, usually consisting of fried eggs, bacon and sausage. I don't do so because she asks me to, or because I feel obligated, I do it because I enjoy it. I pend 5 days a week doing Biz-dev for my firm, talking to, and negotiating with, high level corporate execs, usually VP or higher, and every conversation is a power struggle. So on the weekends its nice to spend some time on something simple and easy that gives me instant gratification. It doesn't make me any less manly than it does a cowboy who cooks on the trail, or a firefighter who cooks at the firehouse. So why should Barda's domestic activities make her less in any way shape or form? Hell you know what? Just go read Scipio's comments, over at the absorbsacon, for all i know he/she may well be be meaning this post as sarcastic, but even if so Scipio gets it right. Just as Stephen Colbert occasionally says something in his parody of conservatives that we actually believe, even if this is sarcastic its dead on accurate.


Meanwhile Anon, A mouse, who has been consistently impressing me by the way, pointed out a very telling, and very important trend. While femi-fans manage to pull the old misogyny gun with a speed that would make Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday do a double take, how often have you every heard them praise any issue, no matter how "womyn-positive" or "gender neutral" the portrayal is? Yeah I've never heard them do it either. Which goes back to Vince Moore's often referenced post as well. When someone only criticise's and never praises, it causes the opposite effect intended. Doesn't matter whether the subject is dogs, children, or the comic industry, if you only use the stick, you gonna get in a lot of stick fights, while a little carrot can go a long way.

Also an Honorable mention to Yonatan bryant for very succinctly pointing out that the same people who scream the shrillest when a female character is being "objectified" engage in the exact same behavior themselves.

Meanwhile a beaucoup kevin, (who I might add deleted my first comment on his blog because it was "flame worthy" despite the fact that at least 2 other posters said the exact same thing I did, and used more inflammatory language to do so) makes a joke pretty much equivalent to the "crankshaft" joke which caused so much uproar. The difference being that instead of joking that old women don't get raped, he instead furthered the stereotype than all men are rapists. Of course that wont get any attention at all.


Now in the last post of this series, Vince Moore over at the Omnium gathering, referred me to an article than has lit my random thoughts with a madman's fire. The article, which postulates a link between the increase in phthalates and the decline in male fertility and virility since the 50's. I had been aware of this trend previously, but I had always assumed it was a psychosomatic reaction to the feminising of our culture. By which I mean that I had always hypothesised that as men began acting more feminine, their bodies simply read their subconscious motivation and manifested a sympathetic physical condition. I had always half assumed the same reaction led to the (seeming) correlation between homosexual "catchers" and body sizes/styles. (by which I mean it seems to me that most of the homosexuals males who act the most feminine also seem to be smaller and more lightly built, as if their bodies were trying to make them more feminine. Although perhaps Mad Thinker Scott can shed some light on whether he has made similar observations, as he has far more experience than I)

The idea that the cause could be environmental led me to some other observations. First let me preface by saying that I have a very high sperm count. Even by 50's standards its high. From the beginning of my sexual adventures at 15 (yes I was a late bloomer) to my 28th year of life, I had never had unprotected sex. I had had quite a bit of sex, but I ALWAYS wrapped my willie. Primarily this was because of my mom. You see my mom was a dental hygienist for years, and as such, had to take yearly re-education courses on blood borne diseases. Suffice it to say, I was told horror stories of the effects of STD's regularly. Surprisingly however there was no effort made to demonise my young sexual urges. In fact on those occasions when my mom found my collection of adult reading material, she never even commented. Years later when I asked why she was so cool about it she said "you were a boy, it was natural" As a result, I never had any real hangups about sex itself, I didn't ever view it as a potential source of fear, but I knew the risks and figured that if I didn't know a woman well enough to trust her with my wallet, then trusting her with the health of my dick was probably not a good idea. As a result, the first woman I ever had unprotected sex with, was my fiancee (now wife). Within a 2 months of us beginning to have unprotected sex, my wife suffered an ectopic pregnancy, which ruptured her fallopian tube. The doctors told us afterwards that the fetus was approximately 2 months old. I later did the math and realised that she must have gotten pregnant pretty much the very first time we had unprotected sex. (which made me very thankful for my previous care in sexual encounters, had I behaved like many men my age, I would have been a father several times over by 18) This is despite the fact that she has an oddly shaped uterus which makes her only about half as fertile as the average woman, and the fact that she was on the pill at the time. I've since had my sperm count tested and was told I'm in the top 1% worldwide. Naturally I found this quite validating. (the test, not my wife's ectopic pregnancy, in point of fact her fear and my guilt led to us having a quite reduced sex life for a while) All of which is a very long winded way of saying that perhaps the reason I can see the feminising of our culture so clearly, is due to the increased sperm count? Perhaps it is this very feminsation of the male body which has blinded so many men to the process of feminising on a societal level? Could it be that rather than being psychosomatic, the physical trend is actually causing the societal trend?I don't know. What I do know, is that when we do decide to have kids, the wife and I ain't letting them drink out of plastic.

The emasculation of America.

Our society has been neutered, emasculated, castrated, and feminised. We have become a society so adverse to risk we are raising a generation of children whose first instinct upon hearing the words "safe sex" will be to picture themselves in football pads. We have become so adverse to conflict it took 3000 americans being murdered before we decided to finally participate in the war thats been waged against us for years, and even then we turned our backs on those fighting the minute we realised it wouldnt be a cake walk. We have becoem so adverse to consequences that we seek to shield ourselves form any hint of them, even when they are the direct results of our own actions. We have become so adverse to offense that we gladly censor ourselves, muddle our thinking, and accept the most ludicrous views wihtout any examination, as we are too afraid to laugh at a lunatic. We have become so afraid of not being inclusive that we regularly give the rights and privaleges of citizenship to those who arent even citizens. We muzzle our mouths, fill our heads with nonsense, willingly stop our ears and cover our eyes so that we cant see or hear the collapse of our nation and our people, and bind our own hands so that we cant do anything to stop it. Any hint of the paternal, of the masculine has ripped from our culture in the name of equality, and replaced with gender neurtral prattle. Any hint of achievement has been replaced by entitlement. The spoils no longer go to the victor, but to the loudest victim in the crowd. We have become a nation of children. Children suckling at the teat of our government, spanked when necessary by our police and courts, educated by our media, and validated by our confromity with the herd.

Men are afraid to be men, women are ashamed to be women, children are treated like adults and adults are coddled like children.


And why has this happened?
Why have we demonised, deprecated, denied an entire set of impulses, instincts, and desires? Why have we decided that a Man's desire is inherantly pernicious, a Man's pride is inherently damaging, and that "Manly" itself is a trait without meaning or value?

Becasue of feminism, in the name of sexual equality, and of social progress.

And in the process? We have educated an entire of generation of women to take pride in acting like trollops, to seek empowerment through whining, to fight for equality through discrimination, to seek justice through false accusations, to celebrate their lives through the deaths of the unborn, to hide their insecurities in hedonism, and that their most basic instincts are chains of opression.

We have done this becasue we have forgotten the core truth about the sexes, they are not in opposition, they are not opposites, and yet nor are they the same. Manly is not defined as "anything that is not feminine" any more than feminine is defined as anything that isnt masculine, but neither is feminine and manly interchangible.

Male and Female are simply two halves of the same whole, we are not adversaries, we are complimentary. We have been designed to support and give succor to each other. Where one is weak the other is strong and where both are strong they are even stronger. And yet, despie this, we are engaged in a war of the sexes.

Why must this be so? Why must there be such venom, such rage, such hate?
Becasue the dominant social theory of our time is feminism. We can see its vicious effect at work in family courts, where the core assumption is that even a bad mother is usually better than a abd dad. We see it in the domestic vioplence courts where with a single unsupported report, a woman can kick a man out of his own and file a restraining order to keep him away, even if she has no claim to his home. We see it it the criminal courts, where a crazy woman who beleives that David Letterman has been sexually harrasing her via secret messages in his broadcast is granted a restraining order against him. We saw it in the scandl surround the Duke Lacrosse team, where a legion of men and women were all to willing to string innocent young men up from the nearest tree becasue anytime a woman accuses rape it actually happened. We saw it in the aftermath as well, when even though the accuser had been shown to be lying, many still wanted to string up those boys because "besides all men are rapists anyhow"

We see when a woman graduates from the fire or police academies becasue the standards were lowered and the tests were watered down. Just as we see it when we see a qaulified man without a job, because a less qualified woman had to "have the playing field leveled" We see it when women breastfeed in public, and those who feel it's not a public activity are demonised and hounded. I saw it when a cop arrested my buddy for "domestic violence" despite his girlfriend not having a mark on her and he having 8 defensive wounds on his arms and his blood on the knife she was holding. I saw it when the courts picked up the charges after she dropped them, and when she came to testify on his behalf, where the judge and prosectuors treated her like a traitor, for daring to drop the charges.

We see it when a radio host is fired for calling a woman a "fat lesbian" despite the fact that she is both. We see it when a university president is fired for even hinting that there may be biological reasons for the sexual distibution at elite universities. We see it in sports where women are allowed in the men's locker room, yet male reporters aren't allowed in the female athletes locker rooms. We see it in education, where teaching techniques designed for girls are used on the whole class with predictible results for boys educational achievements. We see it in entertainment where the men are uniformly boorish morons, unless they are gay, and the women are godesses of competance, even if they are gay. We see it when female lab techs falsify evidence against men they know are innocent, becasue no man can really be innocent.

We see it in a society where young men feel increasingly unwanted, and thus are unengaged. We see it in the decline of boxing and other manly arts. We see it in the increasing unwillingness of society to allow men to handle their problems like men, directly. We see it whenever a teacher stops using red pens to grade assignements, becasue red is too "judgemental" We see it whenever we socially promote a kid a grade becaseu we "dont want to damage his self esteem" we see it in the very idea that confidence, self esteem or pride can be given at all. We see it every time we lower standards rather than raising people up.

Everywhere we loook we see a society that is dysfunctional and getting more so every day. The walls are falling down around us, the roof is burning, and the floodwaters are rising. Yet do we try to stop it? Do we even attempt to take back what we have sacrificed?
Of course not. Dont be an idiot. We want to go even further. We want more specialised rights based on sex and gender, we want more special regulations and considerations, we want more action more affrimitvely. We want more men raised by women who dont know what it means to be a man. We want more boys growing up cycnical, isolated, and repressed. We want more men who have never had a right of passage or trial of manhood, that way we know they will never be cured of peter pan syndrome. We want more dunken celebrities to enagage in even more bizarre behavior so that well have something to distract us form the collapse of civilisation. We want our children growing up wrapped in plastic, never knowing or learning how to deal with pain, adversity, or setbacks. We want a generation of hookers and johns, unable to think of sex as other than a commodity to be bought and sold. We want a generation of men who feel shame every time the see and attractive woman, because they are obectifying her.

And we keep on getting it, this and more.

Why do I bother?

RMM why do you spend time arguing agaisnt feminism in general and feminist comic bloggers in specific? If you're really such a manly secure man why are you so threatened by strong women? Are you some kind of pervert is that why you defend cheesecake so much? Are you just really a mysogonist asshole with a tiny dick? Dont you have a job? Dont you have a life? Dont you have anything better to do than to spend all day pounding on a keyboard insulting people?


I get these kinds of questions all the time. And to be honest, sometimes I wonder myself. I mean why bother?

Well theres a lot of reasons. Take a look at this exchange that "derek" and I had over at Big Mikes Blog

I got a Big Problem with people calling cheesecake art objectification. First of
all Witchblade aint a real woman, so she cant be objectified. Second the whole
concpet of "objectification" is rooted in a Female-positive/Male-negative world
view. If I look at a woman walking down the street and I think to myself, Damn
but shes got a great set of tits, most would consider it objectification
right?But that reaction is as natural, as instinctive, and as human as possible.
You and me, we've been programmed by millions of years of evolution to do just
that. Im not even sure men could "suffer objectification like women" as we
respond differently to a womans gaze than vice versa.

I mean really,
think about it, men regularly show more skin than women do, more comfortably.
Hell we'll pull our pants down and pee in public without even thinking of it.
Part of equality among the sexes is accepting the difference between the sexes.
One of these differences is men and womens differing approaches to sex,
sexuality, and what turns them on. If a woman meets an attractive man for the
first time and he asks if she wants to have sex, she'll be insulted, if a man
meets an attractive woman for the first time and she asks if he wants to have
sex he'll be estatic. In order for there to be any form of equality among the
sexes women and feminists will have to start learning to accept men as men, and
stop expecting them to behave like women.

Rational Mad Man:

"Theres nothing wrong with... going to the beach to
see the pretty girls in bikinis."

Uh, yes, there is. Going to the beach
to go swimming and bask in the sun is fine. Appreciating the attractiveness of
the women while you're there is fine.

Deciding to go to the beach to
leer at women trying to enjoy themselves is sleazy.

"... I got a Big
Problem with people calling cheesecake art objectiification. First of all
Witchblade aint a real woman, so she cant be objectified."

Witchblade is a visual representation of a woman. Objectify the representation, objectify the group.

"Hell we'll pull our pants down and pee in public without even
thinking of it."

No "we" don't. I sure as hell have never exposed myself or urinated in public and would be mortified if anyone I knew did. As would, I imagine, the police.

"In order for there to be any form of equality
among the sexes women and feminists will have to start learning to accept men as
men, and stop expecting them to behave like women."

Point. But the problem with that is that we can't tell which behaviors we are born with - are a product of thousands of years of evolution - and which are forced upon us by our environment.

Until we can nail that down, our only recourse is to try and treat everyone as equally as we possibly can.

And RMM, I don't want
it to seem like I'm attacking you, as the discussion thus far has been
wonderfully civilized, but I had to speak my piece.

Now derek understand I dont think you were atatcking me, and I'm not attacking you. But at the same time your comments represent a contunuing crime against manhood that I can't let stand. Lets look at your comments a bit more fully shall we?

Uh, yes, there is. Going to the beach to go swimming and bask in the sun is fine. Appreciating the attractiveness of the women while you're there is fine.

Deciding to go to the beach to leer at women trying to enjoy themselves
is sleazy.

First of all, notice the language. "leer" is defined by the dictionary as;

To look with a sidelong glance, indicative especially of sexual desire or sly
and malicious intent.

A desirous, sly, or knowing look

Notice how the word itself is defined, and that written into the defintion is the idea that sexual desre and malicious intent are related. Then of course the sentiment is finished up with the use of "sleazy".

SO here we have a 23 year old guy, (at least according to his profile) a guy who should by all rights be enjoying his life to the fullest, and celebrating his sexuality and sexual adventures, who has soemhow been brainwashed into beliveing that appreciating the female form is sleazy, and pernicious.
He has in fact, been brainwashed into beleiving that his own desire is harmful. That even appreciating a woman as a sexual being, even in the privacy of his own head, is sleazy. SO twisted and subverted is his natural sexuality that this poor bastard actually beleives that going somewhere for the purpose of appreciating female beauty is wrong.


Yet if his friends invited him bird watching, or whale watching would he consider that leering? Would that too be sleazy? Of course not.

Now you may be thinking, "well generally whale watchers dont want to have sex with the whales" and although I have never gone whale watching, I sincerely hope your right. But in order to ask that question, to even concieve of it, you have to come from a perspective that sexual interest itself is inherantly bad. In other words you have to believe that watching something for the simple sake of appreciating its beauty is somehow different and somehow more noble than watching something to appreciate its beauty while at the same time experiencing feelings of arousal.

But it gets worse, it gets much worse.

Witchblade is a visual representation of a woman. Objectify the representation, objectify the group.

Think about that statement. Really.
Did you ever have a poster of a hot chick above your bed? Was the point of the picture that she was hot and nothing else? You have objectified all women. Not some, all.
You ever read playboy for something other than the articles? You have objectfied all women.
Ever fantasize about having sex with a movie star, because she was hot and for no other reason? You have objectified all women.

SO here we have this kid, born and raised in America, the land of freedom and opportunity, and he has been indoctinated itno beleiving he has no fundamental right to his own fantasies. That he, becasue of his sex, can never explore those fantasies, that he can never appreciate a womans body, unless he first receives permission. That somehow his own inherant sexuality can not be expressed without casuing harm. Even if all he does is jack off in the bathroom to a picture of a woman he, by allowing himself to indulge in his own private fantasy, he is hurting all women, everywhere.


Does that sound healthy to you? Does that sound like sexual equality? Does that sound like the thinking of a free man? Yeah, me neither.



So how does a man get fooled into thinking his sex's every desire is pernicious and damaging, how does he get conviced of an ideology which makes him choose between feeling like a mental rapist or of supressing his every sexual desire? How does such a repressive and sexist philosophy get sold to those it harms?
In the name of equality of course.

Point. But the problem with that is that we can't tell which behaviors we are born with - are a product of thousands of years of evolution - and which are forced upon us by our environment.

First, he has been trained to accept that we can't tell what the differences are between men and women.His basic premise seems to be that all so called sex differences are really social contructs, and that as such we have to get rid of them all, in order to understand what the differences between men and women are. This idea is the basis for so much of whats wrong with feminism. You hear this idea espused in one form or another by virtually every feminist alive. sometimes its stated as
1) there are no differences between men and woman other than social expectations
or
2) there are differences obviously, but these are purely physcial, minor, and have no effect on abillity, interest, etc.
3) there may be fundemental differences between men and women but since we dont know what they are or which seeming differences are actually societal in anture we should act as if there werent any.

Now when you point out all the major, mental, physical, psychological, sexual, hormonal differences, or differences in body mass, or bone and muscle density or differing rates of mental devlopment or anything else then they gotta start pulling out the rhetoric.

"Well I know it looks like men are bigger and stronger, and at the outliers that is true but theres a larger overlap between the sexes than there are differences between them. "
OK so in other words, they have different medians, different, ranges, different maximum and differnt minimums for each variable, and yet becasue theres a lot of overlap in the middle, there aren't actually any differences? Well of course theres a lot of overlap, we are both humans afterall, what would be neccesary for feminists to understand that sexual differtiation is exactly that? That it seves a purpose, that if the two sexes weren't in fact different, there wouldn't BE two sexes?

Think about it this way, theres a whole lot of overlap between wolves and dogs as well, and we know they are two completly different species, so how far can we really expect men and women to deviate from each other?

By the same token we see in every animal species across the board that has sexual diferntiation, those two sexes take on different roles in order to cooperate most effectively. Now those roles are not the same for all species, nor am I suggesting that humans should conform to any specific sexual role. My point is that in all of those species, there are differences between the sexes which exist in order to help them fulfill that role.



More to the point, even assuming everything derek has said was true, even if we couldnt tell what the differences between men and women are; we're not talking about social behaviors such as assertiveness, or asking for directions, we are talking about his right to fantasy. His right to choose what he wants to see and what he wants to feel. I dont have to decode sexual-political messages to know whether or not I think a woman is hot, I jsut have to be honest with myself, and give myself permission to feel whatever I do.

Until we can nail that down, our only recourse is to try and treat everyone as
equally as we possibly can.

But of course, when we're discussing sex that isnt possible is it? I mean no
matter how comitted I am to equality, I can no more force myself to view a man
with lust than Mad Thinker Scott can force himself to look on a woman with lust.
So right or wrong, whenever I look at jill, the redhead down the hall, at least
a part of me is going to be saying, "damn Id love to see her naked"
It doesn't matter if shes my boss, or my secretary, or my wife. It doesnt matter if I think shes a bimbo, and idiot, a savant, a genius or anything in between. It doesnt matter if I like her as a person or hate her guts, Im still gonna look at her and think "Id love to get between those legs"

I mean I love my wife, I respect her, and I know damn well shes smarter than I am. Even so, when shes wears certain outifts, and I look at her, I dont think, "wow what an amazing and intlligent woman who is every bit my equal" I'm thinking "god her ass looks good in that"

Is that objectification? Afterall Im not thinking of her in terms of my wife, or life partner, I'm not considering her intelligence or her wit, Im just looking at her ass and getting aroused.
And yet, I know I do in fact respect her, do in fact love her, and do in fact value her as a person. Just not at that moment, at that moment, I aint really thinking. Now a feminist would probably read the preceding paragraph and say "yes you were objectifying her" me, I just say I'm being a man and reacting exactly the way nature designed me too.

And theres nothing at all wrong with that, in fact its because of this, among other reasons, that our relationship is healthy.

Now my point is, if a reasonably intelligent young man can be so twisted by feminist ideology, that he doesnt even realise he is willingly abdicating his right to fantasy and to be comfortable with his own desires, without even realising it, it says a lot about what has happened to our
society.

I have a lot to say about the overall demasculating and neutering of America, but I just got an Alfredo Chicken pizza delivered, and Im gonna go over to my wifes office and objectify her while I eat.

I'll leave y'all with this last bit of wisdom by one of this countries greatest observers.

Well that's great! That sets a legal precedent. Does that mean I can sue Dan
Folgerburg for making me into a pussy in the mid-70's. Is that possible, huh?
Huh?! "Your honor, between him and James Taylor, I didn't get a blow job 'till I
was 27 years old. I was in Colorado wearing hiking boots eating granola. I want
some fucking money right now!

Why I am an anti-feminist. AKA The sheer hypocracy of feminist comic bloggers and the Mary Jane Maquette "controversey"

Hello everybody.
I know I know, I was supposed to have several new installments weeks ago.
Unfortuately somethings came up and I had little time or opportunity for blogging. (more on this next post)
However as busy as I was I did get sucked into the whole Mary jane staue thing.
You may have seen some of my posts deriding the hypocritical and quite frankly overemotional response of many prominant feminist bloggers.

Many many examples can be seen here.
http://womenincomics.blogspot.com/


Some of you may be wondering if this will be trend.
The answer is yes.
You see I enjoy hoisting those who are self righteous, hypocritical, and irrational up on their own petard.
And few fit the bill as well as feminists. Militant homosexuals come pretty close, but even militant Blacks have settled down and become fairly rational over the last few decades.
Hmm women and homsexuals theres a thread there, maybe even tomorrows post.

But I digress.

I am a strident anti-feminist.

However this does not, as all the bra burning, man hating, vagina monologues reading, protest leading, hariy legged, sexually frustrated, gloria steinham wannabes will say, mean I am anti-woman.

Confused?

Good its a great place to start.

Truth is I love women.
I love everything about them.
I love thier bodies, I love their minds.

I dont love feminists.
I dont love the crackpot theory that men and women are the same. By 4 most of us have figured out thats bullshit.
I dont love the idea that anything feminine is good and anything masculine is bad.
I dont love the inherant assumption that any form of male sexual desire is demeaning.
I dont love the inherant belief that women who take a traditonal sex role are "betraying the sisterhood"
I dont love the idea that any women who would "serve" her husband by doing the laundry, cooking, or otherwise being domestic, is either being "exploited" or "lacks self respect".

I dont love these ideas because they are inherantly anti-woman.

Lets make one thing clear. If you love someone you will serve them gladly.
It doesnt matter whether you're a man in love with a woman, a woman in love with a man, a man in love with a man, or a woman in love with a purple alien from rigel 7.
When you love someone you want to serve them.
When you love someone serving them is a joy.

I love waking up in the moring on saturday and making my wife breakfast. 5 days a week she wakes up and gets my coffee ready as I grudgingly return to life for the same reason.

We love each other, we love doing for each other, and we love making each other happy. That is what marriage is supposed to be about.

For both sexes.
But feminists would have you believe that doing laundry for your husband demeans you.

How can willing service done gladly in the name of love demean?


You'd have to ask a feminist.


Reread though the many posts of indignent women howling to the gods about the inherant sexism in the staue and 90% mention thats shes *gasp* "doing laundry".
More than that most cite it as one of the statues chief offenses and examples of sexism.

In other words any woman who does anything remotely resembling "service" for a man is being "exploited"

Of course a man who does his wifes laundry is just "being enlightened"

Yeah I know it makes no sense to me either but then, Im not hopelessly dedicated to an irrational and illogical ideology.


Feminists are.

Lets be brutally honest with each other for a minute.
Despite feminist propaganda men and women are very different.
We choose different types of jobs, place different value on work as opposed to family, take different types of risks professionally, engage in different passtimes, and have different interests in sports, movies and literature. We enjoy different types of sexual stimulation, have different errogenous zones, and consume different types of erotica (porn to men). Yes there are those exceptions that dont fall into the norms. They are few and far between. Most women like shoe shopping. Most men do not. This is not a sexist statement, its a statement of fact.
However femninists by and large dont want women in comics to share these "gender" traits that the vast majority of woemn do show, becasue to do so would be sexist. Rather they want to see characterisations of women which fit thier ideology but which would be unrecognisable to the vast majority of actual women.

A woman in comics for example, at least according to feminists, can't be a "passive" (in other words a woman who responds to a mans advances)conquest of a male hero sexually without being labeled as an "accessory item at best, a living testament to the male heros sexual prowess at worst", but if shes sexually agressive shell be labeled as a "fan boys wet dream"

If she engages in "girly" activities like ohhhh lets say laundry shes "a demeaned and exploited domestic and sexual servant" but if shes works a full time job, is unmarried, and refuses to engage in "domestic" activities shes a "ball busting caricarture of feminsits designed to discredit them"


Hmmm, seems as if any portrayl of women is disatisfactiory.


The second problem is that wrapped up into all the feminsit beliefs is the idea that soemhow, male sexual interest itself is somehow damaging.

This can be seen by the fact despite the fact that the MJ staues was actually fully clothed, its "suggestive pose was designed to titilate".

Yeah so?

So was the shot of Kevin Costner's butt in Robin hood. So what?

The point is, any image designed to titlate men is inherantly sexist, ergo all male sexual desire is inherantly sexist.



Understand, men are not, as feminsit and most modernist literature would suggest, idiots only capable of keeping one thought in thier mind at a time.

In other word we can look at a woman and fantasize about having dirty, kinky, animal sex, and still respect and even admire her for other traits.

I am in total lust with jenna jameson, but I respect her abillity to take that popularity and build an Adult Empire based on it far more than I lust for her. Truth is my "fantasy encouter with her would start with us having animalistic sex, but once our ardor had cooled it invloves an hours long discussion of the trends and opportunities shes sees in the adult industry and the specific business startegies she is enacting in order to take advantage of them.

Just as I think jessica simpsons public image is that of a dumb blonde bimbo, yet despite that and my obvious attraction to her I respect her abillity to successfully marketing her branded items immensely.


My point is theres nothing stopping a woman from being a(willing)object of intense sexual desire one minute and a competant intelligent lady the next or even the same moment.

Theres no earthly reason a woman cant wear a pantsuit in the boardroom and a bustier in the bed (or laundry) room.


Except of course that feminsits say so.

And theres nothing, and I mean nothing inherantly more "valuable, self respectful, or pro-woman" about a woman who has a career than a woman who voluntarily decides that her contribution to society via her child rearing skills is more important to her than the contribution she can make to society as a worker.

Female CEO's are no more important, and no more "pro-woman" Than stay at homes moms, or wives.

No matter what the screaming mimi's might screech.

The idea that a woman who chooses to split the work down "traditional sex lines" as opposed to working is somehow a "self hating volutary slave of the patriarchy" is so unbelivably wrong headed that it drops my jaw to the floor.

Its sad to see that the ones who are taking away the vast majority of womens choices, and devalueing a vast percentage of womens contributions are the so called feminsits isn't it?

Want to stay home and raise your children to be strong men and women?
Sorry your betraying the sisterhood.
Aren't interested in corporate politics or working the 60-70 hour weeks necessary to becoem a top level executive?
Sorry your betraying the sisterhood.
Want to shopw you husband that you love him and support him in his life choices after he comes back form a hard night fighting supervillians by washing his stinky uniform?
Sorry MJ you're betraying the sisterhood, or rather the artist who sculpted you is.

Was this staue desingned to appeal to men?
Yeah so what?
The "guy butt" shot early in heroes was desinged to appeal to women, does that mean its sexist?

The fact is if you look at the hysteria and the resonses to this controversy around the net, what it boils down to is this. Any depiction of a woman which doesnt exactly conform to feminsit orthodoxy is automatically sexist, regardelss of whether it is or not when women do the same thing.

When women write "slash" fanfics designed for women, which are in fact far more hypersexualised than any comic published today, its just "women writing what women want to read" When Frank Cho does a version of ultron that appears as a naked women, its sexist.

Even more bizarrely, when Homosexuals write "alt" fan fics which portray male characters in a hypersxualised way for the enjoyment of men or when gay women write female characters in a hypersexualised way for the enjoyment of women (which is exactly the carges being lkevelled against comics) it isn't considered sexist, yet when men write women in a hypersexualised way for the enjoyemnt of men it is.
Why isn't it sexist when men do it to men, or women do it to women,for the exact same reasons or for that matter when women do it to men, but only when men do it to women?
Isn't that in itself sexism?



But what really gets me, is that even when "feminists" have to go so far to make
thier point, that thier own efforts show the extreme double standard by which they live, they dont clue in.

For example, as a form of "come uppance" many feminist sites posted this image seen on the right.



The one on the left of course is the Statue that caused all the fuss.

Yet if you look close, or hell even glance at either you'll see a major difference.

While MJ is fully Clothed, Peter is dressed in only a thong.
And yet somehow to feminsits, these two images are "the same"


How?!?!?!?

MJ while dressed somehwat provacotively (and yet no more so than half of all the women walking outside my office window) is wearing jeans and a shirt which together cover at least 75% of her skin. Spiderman on the otherhand has less than 10% covered.

See the thing is this image, better than any argument I could marshall proves the inherant hypocracy of the feminist movement.


It shows in full color just how big the disconnect between reality and ideology is and more to the point how blatently they market a double standard as equality.

Think about this. If the pose and clothing of MJ was so obviously offensive and sexist, why is the peter image shown nearly naked?

I belive its because the original artist knew that if she created an image of peter wearing the exact same clothes in the exact same position, noone would raise and eyebrow.
Even going as far beyond the orginal image as she did, she got nowhere near the response the original did.

But my point is, why feel the need to take the "rebuttal" image to such an extreme unless you KNOW THAT THE ORIGANL IMAGE WOULD OFFEND NONE IF ACCURATELY TRANSFERRED?


See the thing is If MJ were wearing Lingerie or a bathing suit, or her bra and panties, while in that pose I might see an issue, and that would be analogous to the peter image.
But it wasn't, and it isn't.

What it was, was a sad and rather pathetic attempt to "give men a taste of their own medicine" which failed miserably because even as extreme as the image created was, no one really cared.

There was no "outrage" or at the least, so little I didnt see any, over the Peter image.
No one that saw called it "demeaning to men"
Hell most guys said "theres nothing wrong with that and it would probably sell."

Which again exposes the hypocracy of feminists. or at least the hypersensitivity.


Truth is there isn't acountry in the world where women have it better than here in the good old U S of A.

In some respects women have it better than men, just ask any man whose ever gone through a divorce, a child custody case, or atempted to defend himself against false or malicous rape or domestic abuse charges.

See I dont have a problem with feminists becasue they are ( opr more accurately claim to be) pro-women, I have a problem because
1) they aren't.
and
2) becasue they claim to be for equality, but are only interested in inequalities which penalise them.

Alimony more than anything else puts the lie to feminist propaganda.

For those of you who aren't aware, alimoney is a monthly payment made to your exwife, from the day of your divorce, untill the day she remarries.
Its a hold over form times when women couldn't support themselves do to the lack of opportunities in the labor markets.

Yet despite the fact that alimoney is based on the asusmption that women not only still cant provide for themselves financially, but that she REQUIRES a man to support her, you would think all these "I am woman and I dont need a man" radical and outspoken feminists would be outraged. Or the idea that "children should be raised by theier mother if a divorce happens since women are more maternal" which is why better than 80% of all those granted custody in contested (where both parents want custody) cases are women.

Yet how often have we heard Feminists arguing or protesting the sexist and patriarchal assumptions of these two practises?

Never.

Becasue this is a form of sexism that benefits them.

And thats what bugs me.

See what pisses me off about "popular causes" is the lack of basic honesty.
Feminsits CLAIM they want eqauilty, yet want to be TREATED inequally if it BENFITS them.

Thats hypocracy.
If you want to be treated like an equal, Im going to treat you like an equal. I WILL TELL the exact same jokes I do in mixed comany I will in all male comany. I will say a woman looks hot, regardless of whether or not women are around If i think she looks hot. I will comliment a woman on her apppearence just as I would a male coworker who looks particularly spiffy that day.
(try this experimetn ask 20 men if they've been working out, then ask 20 women, see which group tries to send you to senistivity training.)
Feminists CLAIM they want equality, yet back Domestic Abuse laws where despite the physical evidence a man is assumed to be the agressor and automatically taken to jail.
(here in florida such is the law, a friend was stabbed by his girlfriend with a butchers knife and despite the facts the he had multiple defensive wounds and she had no inmjusries visible or otherwise he was taken to jail. Local feminists called it a "triumph of gender equality")
Feminsits CLAIM they want equality, yet never protest the inherant sexism of Custody court biases. They claim they want equality, yet you never hear them claiming that men who hit women are in fact acting in a truly gender nuetral basis. (as Booster gold once remarked "in the 30th century sexual equailty is a given, I can hit anyone I want"

In other words thier actions do not support thier statements.

My opinion, and one that was expressed better than I ever could by Carlos Mencia, is that if you want equality I will give it to you, if you want sepcial treatment all you have to do is admit you're inferior. But you cant have it both ways. You either get equality, OR special treatment the two are mutually exclusive.

You want alimoney payments? No problem admit you're not as good as a man and need me to suport you. Dont think its true? Then dont take the money. You want to automatically get the children in custody? No problem admit women are better at childcare, that they are naturally suited to it, an stop bitching when people expect you to quit working to raise your children. Dont think its true? Then dont accept a sexist verdict.
You think women are the equal of men? No problem, now you have to meet the same physical standards for jobs such as firefighter soldier or police officer. Dont want to meet the same standard? No problem just admit men are stronger, and better suited to the job and let those jobs be sexually segregated.

You can eat your cake, but when your done you wont still have a piece of cake. Or you can keep your piece of cake, but you have to forgo eating it.
You dont get it both ways.

I belive in sexual equality, and thats why I have no problems bitch slapping a feminist. Verbally or physically.




Oh and to anyone who feels offended by my remarks?

I intended to offend you. I want to offend you, and writing in my coments section that I did so will only make me happy. So go ahead, make my day. Prove what a bunch of whiney, comlaining, hypocriticalm, sexually frustrated, mommas boys and emo-girls y'all are.


Two last things.
1)as a direct result of this controversey, I will be buying several of these maquettes. One I will purchase for myself the other three as gifts. (i have already placed an order at my LCS) I have never purchased a maquette or statue or any other toys or stauettes related to comics before. I have no interest in them. I am buying this one specifically because I want to ensure more like them are made, and the best way to do that is to buy several.
2) I am looking for men and women sick of feminist hypocracy to help me create an anti-feminist web org designed to counteract every one of these flaps by writing in support of supposedly "sexist" comics, toys, posters, and statues, online, and via snail mail, to let the comic companies know that the squeeky wheels dont represent thier customer base and can be safely ingnored as the shrill manhating harpies they are.

Manliness, Metrosexuals, Feminism, and Gender

As you can tell from the title this post is going to be all about Sex and Sexual relations in Modern America, as I see them.

And yeah, I expect it might raise some hackles.

Let me be Blunt, I'm a Man. I love being a Man. In point of Fact every time I see my wife waxing, plucking, manicuring, or trying to walk in a particularly high pair of heels, I thank God Almighty I was born with a pair.

Hell every day starts out with a reminder of why I'm so lucky to be a Man. While my wife wakes up a good 45 minutes before I do, we finish getting ready about the same time. She showers, carefully chooses her clothes, puts on her make-up, changes her clothes, washes off her make-up, changes her clothes again, puts on different make-up, does her hair, etc, etc. Me? I wake up, take care of the three S's, throw on whatever clothes I see first, and go.

It takes her about an hour,while I have my morning routine down to about 7 minutes. Literally. (Shaving, showering and brushing my teeth all at the same time helps)

In most things, I have it good. I'm not expected to care about fashion, or style, I don't have to "look pretty", or wear labels. I don't have to pluck, primp, or in general worry about my appearance beyond not having BO, and running a comb through my hair once a month. Even better, unless I'm at work where I have to wear a suit, I can get away with jeans and a T in damn near every situation.

As you might can tell, I love it. I really really do.

Which is why I have so much trouble understanding the whole "metrosexual" trend. Seriously, why in the hell would a guy even want to keep track of fashions, or use lotions, or pluck his eyebrows, or "accessorise"? What man in his right mind would voluntarily choose to adopt the most time consuming, annoying, expensive, and useless habits of a woman? It just doesn't make no sense y'know?

Now I have heard some say that metrosexuality is the logical reaction to feminism, after all if women can become more like men, then why can't men become more like women? And I guess if a guy really wants to be more feminine in his habits, well that's his God given right as an American. But why would he want to?

See now I understand why women wanted to dress more like men, that made sense. Bras look fairly uncomfortable, and most women look better without them anyway. (The ones still fighting the good fight against gravity anyway.) Dresses are a pain in the butt, as I learned on a trip to Scotland when a friend talked me into wearing a kilt after one too many single malts. High heels look great but can't possible be easy to walk in. I mean you take 90% of "women's clothes" and they all got one thing in common. They look good and hurt like hell.

But whats the payoff for the men? I mean guys lets face it, no matter how hard most of us work, no matter hos much we try, we're never gonna be as pretty as most ugly women, much less the beauties. Now I know there are exceptions, especially in Hollywood where the women are women and so are the men, but unless you're Leonardo DiCaprio you ain't got a chance. So why bother wasting you time looking for the latest fashions, Plucking your eyebrows, or getting a facial when you know damn well you're still going to be the same mutt you before you started? You can take my cousins pitbull, wash its coat, manicure its paws, and put it in a dress, and it'll still be a cross eyed freak of nature. And so will you most likely.

Now before any of you metrosexual fashionistas get your panties in a bunch I'll admit it ain't your fault. Its just the way god made us. Women are beautiful creatures, because they are made that way. They are soft, and feminine, and glow radiantly when they smile. And if you atheists out there need any proof that god exists and that he loves us just remember that those angelic creatures somehow manage to find us beer guzzling, gas passing, butt scratching, booger flicking, competitive belching, man apes attractive.

But men? Well hell, most of us look like a cross between Alley Oop and Frankensteins monster and no amount of primping is gonna change that. Its in our nature. Men are kinda like hammers, we may not be much to look at, but well get the job done. We weren't created to look good, we didn't evolve to be pretty, we evolved to go out and hunt down woolly mammoths with a sharpened stick, while our much prettier and smarter mates stayed home, watched the rug rats, and did the gardening.

Now I know I have probably pissed off a whole horde of feminists by now who are just aching to lecture me about how gender ain't nothing but a "societal construct" designed by the "patriarchy" to enable men to "oppress" the fairer sex. And I know they'll happily ignore millions of years of evolution and the existence of separate roles for each of the sexes in damn near every animal that ever lived to do it. But that's OK, I'm a man, I can take it. Its what we do, we endure, and we get the job done.

The way I see it, the problem is really two fold, on the one hand we got a society that's moving further and further away from accepting, much less admiring anything traditionally thought of as manly, like competition, physicality, violence, stoicism, uncompromising surety,or plain old fashioned will. On the other hand we have a society rewarding the many of the traits traditionally thought of as feminine, like compromise, persuasion, reflection, or simply complaining till you get what you want.

We live in a society where everyone has to be nurtured until they can't deal with adversity, shielded from competition so as not to hurt their self esteem, protected from the consequences of their own actions, guided by the hand so they won't make bad choices, and god forbid anything you say ever offends someone.

Now I don't pretend to have all the answers as to why this is happening, or even the first clue how to reverse it. And its not beyond the realm of possibility that I could be dead wrong in everything I say. But at the end of the day, I can't help but see a correlation between the number of men who go to salons to get their hair done as opposed to Barbers, the number of lawsuits rising like a flood tide for everything under the sun, and the fact that its considered offensive to suggest that maybe, just maybe, men and women ain't quite the same.

But then what the hell do I know, I'm just a caveman who was born a few thousand years too late.