<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: US Misandry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/</link>
	<description>Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sedonaman</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-60322</link>
		<dc:creator>sedonaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-60322</guid>
		<description>Pat Skurka: 

I know you read &quot;Enough With the Obsfucation Already, Part Two&quot;   http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/01/enough-with-the-obfuscation-already-part-two , but did you read the referenced article,  http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html  ?  I think it might answer some of your questions of &quot;why&quot;. What struck me was it was written in 1965 !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pat Skurka: </p>
<p>I know you read &#8220;Enough With the Obsfucation Already, Part Two&#8221;   <a href="http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/01/enough-with-the-obfuscation-already-part-two" rel="nofollow">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/01/enough-with-the-obfuscation-already-part-two</a> , but did you read the referenced article,  <a href="http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html</a>  ?  I think it might answer some of your questions of &#8220;why&#8221;. What struck me was it was written in 1965 !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Skurka</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-60122</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat Skurka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-60122</guid>
		<description>Sedonaman:

I’m not a psychologist either, just a businessman, but I believe you’re right – there probably isn’t one specific reason for this male-hate phenomena in our culture and popular media. And, your point that people emulate in real life what they see in the media is apt.

What puzzles me is why little boys are being encouraged to grow up to be more like their mothers – they certainly wouldn’t want to grow up to be men, according to Hollywood and the media. Better to be psychological females rather than those brutal, cowardly guys portrayed in the crime dramas – or the nitwit, male losers in the situation comedies. The “HE done HER wrong” theme is very prevalent in the crime/action dramas as you noted, but now the female is the macho hero as well as the victim. Women are currently portrayed in shows as “a** - kicking” cops, Indiana Jones style action heroes, bionic super-fems, you name it. They have all the character qualities of a latter day John Wayne, but with a keen fashion sense and superior personal hygiene.  

Are future Marines or Army Rangers going to be sensitive, highly emotional types with a social conscience? If so, do they get a “constitutional choice” when it comes to armed combat as women get now with abortion? Seems only fair to eliminate the double standard – after all it’s their body that goes in harm’s way and seems equitable to give them, not the government, a personal choice in whether to face live fire situations.  

If the motive is to sensitize little boys to the female point of view in order to protect Western women from patriarchal societies in the Middle East or elsewhere on the globe, then the plan will certainly backfire if this “my body – my choice” concept is adopted as well. In past wars, men weren’t allowed to vote or seek group consensus on whether it was desirable to charge the enemy machine gun nest.

I’m still puzzled as to the motivation but convinced this male-hate phenomena would work out better in the end if it’s only a passing fad – better for all of us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sedonaman:</p>
<p>I’m not a psychologist either, just a businessman, but I believe you’re right – there probably isn’t one specific reason for this male-hate phenomena in our culture and popular media. And, your point that people emulate in real life what they see in the media is apt.</p>
<p>What puzzles me is why little boys are being encouraged to grow up to be more like their mothers – they certainly wouldn’t want to grow up to be men, according to Hollywood and the media. Better to be psychological females rather than those brutal, cowardly guys portrayed in the crime dramas – or the nitwit, male losers in the situation comedies. The “HE done HER wrong” theme is very prevalent in the crime/action dramas as you noted, but now the female is the macho hero as well as the victim. Women are currently portrayed in shows as “a** &#8211; kicking” cops, Indiana Jones style action heroes, bionic super-fems, you name it. They have all the character qualities of a latter day John Wayne, but with a keen fashion sense and superior personal hygiene.  </p>
<p>Are future Marines or Army Rangers going to be sensitive, highly emotional types with a social conscience? If so, do they get a “constitutional choice” when it comes to armed combat as women get now with abortion? Seems only fair to eliminate the double standard – after all it’s their body that goes in harm’s way and seems equitable to give them, not the government, a personal choice in whether to face live fire situations.  </p>
<p>If the motive is to sensitize little boys to the female point of view in order to protect Western women from patriarchal societies in the Middle East or elsewhere on the globe, then the plan will certainly backfire if this “my body – my choice” concept is adopted as well. In past wars, men weren’t allowed to vote or seek group consensus on whether it was desirable to charge the enemy machine gun nest.</p>
<p>I’m still puzzled as to the motivation but convinced this male-hate phenomena would work out better in the end if it’s only a passing fad – better for all of us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sedonaman</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59865</link>
		<dc:creator>sedonaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59865</guid>
		<description>Pat Skurka: 

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, I too have noticed the proliferation of what I call &quot;he-done-HER-wrong&quot; crime programs on TV. I began watching &quot;Law and Order&quot; when they were first re-runs, and I must say the older shows had some interesting twist in the end. Then they evolved into &quot;he-done-HER-wrong&quot; and were no longer of interest. Same with the forensic crime series. They are 99.44% a specialized version of the &quot;he-done-HER-wrong&quot; plot: &quot;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;HE raped and murdered HER&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&quot; 

I&#039;m not a psychologist, but I think the reasons for all this male-hate in the popular culture are not due to a single reason but many. 

Your question of &quot;Why would a little boy want to be like the images of men currently portrayed in our entertainment and popular media?&quot; contains its own answer: &lt;i&gt;because it&#039;s portrayed in the popular media&lt;/i&gt;. Most people unconsciously accept the movies, TV, etc. as portraying the ideal, and who doesn&#039;t want to be part of the ideal? Example: One day a fellow at work said he watched (I think it was) &quot;A Fistful of Dollars&quot; the night before. All that day, he smoked his cigarettes the same way Clint Eastwood did in the movie.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pat Skurka: </p>
<p>Thank you for your kind words.</p>
<p>Yes, I too have noticed the proliferation of what I call &#8220;he-done-HER-wrong&#8221; crime programs on TV. I began watching &#8220;Law and Order&#8221; when they were first re-runs, and I must say the older shows had some interesting twist in the end. Then they evolved into &#8220;he-done-HER-wrong&#8221; and were no longer of interest. Same with the forensic crime series. They are 99.44% a specialized version of the &#8220;he-done-HER-wrong&#8221; plot: &#8220;<b><i>HE raped and murdered HER&#8221;</i></b>.&#8221; </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not a psychologist, but I think the reasons for all this male-hate in the popular culture are not due to a single reason but many. </p>
<p>Your question of &#8220;Why would a little boy want to be like the images of men currently portrayed in our entertainment and popular media?&#8221; contains its own answer: <i>because it&#8217;s portrayed in the popular media</i>. Most people unconsciously accept the movies, TV, etc. as portraying the ideal, and who doesn&#8217;t want to be part of the ideal? Example: One day a fellow at work said he watched (I think it was) &#8220;A Fistful of Dollars&#8221; the night before. All that day, he smoked his cigarettes the same way Clint Eastwood did in the movie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Skurka</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59626</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat Skurka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59626</guid>
		<description>Sedonaman:

As usual, your comments brought a smile to my face; while watching the Sunday night football game I had the very same thought. American men have definitely dropped to the bottom of the cultural food chain. But, what remains unexplained by the sociologists is why societies invariably feel the need to single out a particular group to despise. This human foible apparently crosses different cultures and different times; the groups may change but there always seems to be one group that is the official scapegoat, the living, breathing Polish joke and the designated loser everyone else can hate with impunity.

In our society, that group is currently men, and white guys in particular. And, what’s extremely weird is that men, particularly white men, encourage it. Admittedly, that’s strange behavior and kind of like the Nazis recruiting Jews to write propaganda explaining the superiority of The Master Race and the inferiority of sub-humans. To their credit, the Jews would have flatly refused to despise their own people, but certain contemporary American men would no doubt have agreed to turn on their brothers by saying: “OK, I’ll do it, but only if I can have a window office and a secretary with big boobs.”   

If you check, I’d bet my new motorcycle that the people who decided we need a Suzy or a Melissa to conduct useless interviews during the game are men. They’re probably chasing the “female viewer” for the advertising dollars – somewhat understandable, although supposedly a typical behavior of American males motivated solely by greed.

But, what about all the television courtroom dramas like “Law &amp; Order” and its numerous crime drama spin-offs? Ever notice that most murderers are white guys, seldom minorities or women. And, the men, almost invariably white guys, commit the most disgusting murders, rapes, mutilations and child abuse for a variety of perverted reasons or no reason at all. Is it just a coincidence the producers and script writers of these shows are white guys? We can’t enjoy a cops and robbers theme anymore unless the “perp” is both male and white? 

Is this a form of self-hate or is it a wily attempt to stay on top of the economic game at the expense of stigmatizing themselves, their male friends and even their own sons? And, what’s with the beer commercials: all guys are lazy, housework avoiding nitwits who come up with various ridiculous plans to avoid work so they can drink beer (and, that’s assuming you actually consider Bud Light to be beer). All the guys I know, including the hated white guys, are decent, honest men working hard to care for their wives and kids in an increasingly competitive world.

I can’t explain the underlying reasons, but I don’t think it’s just American women who are turning little boys into little girls. Why would a little boy want to be like the images of men currently portrayed in our entertainment and popular media? My fantasy beer commercial is a bunch of white guys and their sons enjoying a father and son outing by drinking Sam Adams while simultaneously beating the mess out of the Hollywood writers and producers of “Law &amp; Order”.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sedonaman:</p>
<p>As usual, your comments brought a smile to my face; while watching the Sunday night football game I had the very same thought. American men have definitely dropped to the bottom of the cultural food chain. But, what remains unexplained by the sociologists is why societies invariably feel the need to single out a particular group to despise. This human foible apparently crosses different cultures and different times; the groups may change but there always seems to be one group that is the official scapegoat, the living, breathing Polish joke and the designated loser everyone else can hate with impunity.</p>
<p>In our society, that group is currently men, and white guys in particular. And, what’s extremely weird is that men, particularly white men, encourage it. Admittedly, that’s strange behavior and kind of like the Nazis recruiting Jews to write propaganda explaining the superiority of The Master Race and the inferiority of sub-humans. To their credit, the Jews would have flatly refused to despise their own people, but certain contemporary American men would no doubt have agreed to turn on their brothers by saying: “OK, I’ll do it, but only if I can have a window office and a secretary with big boobs.”   </p>
<p>If you check, I’d bet my new motorcycle that the people who decided we need a Suzy or a Melissa to conduct useless interviews during the game are men. They’re probably chasing the “female viewer” for the advertising dollars – somewhat understandable, although supposedly a typical behavior of American males motivated solely by greed.</p>
<p>But, what about all the television courtroom dramas like “Law &amp; Order” and its numerous crime drama spin-offs? Ever notice that most murderers are white guys, seldom minorities or women. And, the men, almost invariably white guys, commit the most disgusting murders, rapes, mutilations and child abuse for a variety of perverted reasons or no reason at all. Is it just a coincidence the producers and script writers of these shows are white guys? We can’t enjoy a cops and robbers theme anymore unless the “perp” is both male and white? </p>
<p>Is this a form of self-hate or is it a wily attempt to stay on top of the economic game at the expense of stigmatizing themselves, their male friends and even their own sons? And, what’s with the beer commercials: all guys are lazy, housework avoiding nitwits who come up with various ridiculous plans to avoid work so they can drink beer (and, that’s assuming you actually consider Bud Light to be beer). All the guys I know, including the hated white guys, are decent, honest men working hard to care for their wives and kids in an increasingly competitive world.</p>
<p>I can’t explain the underlying reasons, but I don’t think it’s just American women who are turning little boys into little girls. Why would a little boy want to be like the images of men currently portrayed in our entertainment and popular media? My fantasy beer commercial is a bunch of white guys and their sons enjoying a father and son outing by drinking Sam Adams while simultaneously beating the mess out of the Hollywood writers and producers of “Law &amp; Order”.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Honker</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59621</link>
		<dc:creator>Honker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59621</guid>
		<description>Oh yes, a hobby.  Which means you probably do not believe your view of history should stand as law for future generations and you probably offer society something other than babble.  You would be regarded as the novice who only exist to be put down and used as an elevation tool for the full time serious historian.  Yes, you are to them  what the infomericial is to a full page ad in the New York Times; Yes you may be to  the point and successful but you are lacking the intellectual aptitude to handle such complicated issues of the past and transcend such logic and reason to the present.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh yes, a hobby.  Which means you probably do not believe your view of history should stand as law for future generations and you probably offer society something other than babble.  You would be regarded as the novice who only exist to be put down and used as an elevation tool for the full time serious historian.  Yes, you are to them  what the infomericial is to a full page ad in the New York Times; Yes you may be to  the point and successful but you are lacking the intellectual aptitude to handle such complicated issues of the past and transcend such logic and reason to the present.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59609</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59609</guid>
		<description>Sigh I do not know how to edit... I meant History proffesors...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sigh I do not know how to edit&#8230; I meant History proffesors&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59608</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59608</guid>
		<description>How do you lump in English teachers and History Proffesors with momma&#039;s boys trying to get respect?  This is a perfect example of leftwards thinking.

Not even most men could be English teachers or Hostory professors.  To be successful, it takes a talent set not generally present in the majority.

I am not a history proffesor, but the study of history is my general hobby.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do you lump in English teachers and History Proffesors with momma&#8217;s boys trying to get respect?  This is a perfect example of leftwards thinking.</p>
<p>Not even most men could be English teachers or Hostory professors.  To be successful, it takes a talent set not generally present in the majority.</p>
<p>I am not a history proffesor, but the study of history is my general hobby.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Honker</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59598</link>
		<dc:creator>Honker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59598</guid>
		<description>I can only hope the author&#039;s next book will inlcude one on the self-admiring authors, professors, and reporters in this country, which can simply be labled as useless with little to no benefit to society.  (I do not need any proof for this, after all I read the New York Times for 12 years, that alone makes me qualified.)  As the groups above were labled and disected as &quot;News of the Wierd&quot; I simply saw adrenaline junkies (minus the bums).  Maybe we can look at these &quot;intellectuals&quot; for what they really are, little momma&#039;s boys who are still trying to recieve any form of respect from society to justify their very existence.  We all know the types; think tank wannabees, English teachers, History professors, liberals in general, and probably the worst; guys who spend way too much time writing opinions on a blog when they could be doing something productive.  Geez-  I have to get back to work ...........lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can only hope the author&#8217;s next book will inlcude one on the self-admiring authors, professors, and reporters in this country, which can simply be labled as useless with little to no benefit to society.  (I do not need any proof for this, after all I read the New York Times for 12 years, that alone makes me qualified.)  As the groups above were labled and disected as &#8220;News of the Wierd&#8221; I simply saw adrenaline junkies (minus the bums).  Maybe we can look at these &#8220;intellectuals&#8221; for what they really are, little momma&#8217;s boys who are still trying to recieve any form of respect from society to justify their very existence.  We all know the types; think tank wannabees, English teachers, History professors, liberals in general, and probably the worst; guys who spend way too much time writing opinions on a blog when they could be doing something productive.  Geez-  I have to get back to work &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ivan Ivanovich</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59519</link>
		<dc:creator>Ivan Ivanovich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59519</guid>
		<description>No RI, I did not take a wrong lesson. I agree that men and women have the same average IQ, but the problems with Hillary are those typical to women as described in the baumeister article. She has never led and she is only concerned about power. God knows what she would do to this country. I suppose there will be a woman some day that can lead this country, but it’s not her. I admired her when she stuck by the President during his Lewinski affair, but now it’s obvious what she was planning all the time. That kind of long-range repression can only come from a female. She has been humiliated and she plans to get even, or more.

On the other hand, maybe it will be good for us to have her back at 1600. It took the incompetence of Jimmy Carter to bring us back. Just imagine Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, as Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No RI, I did not take a wrong lesson. I agree that men and women have the same average IQ, but the problems with Hillary are those typical to women as described in the baumeister article. She has never led and she is only concerned about power. God knows what she would do to this country. I suppose there will be a woman some day that can lead this country, but it’s not her. I admired her when she stuck by the President during his Lewinski affair, but now it’s obvious what she was planning all the time. That kind of long-range repression can only come from a female. She has been humiliated and she plans to get even, or more.</p>
<p>On the other hand, maybe it will be good for us to have her back at 1600. It took the incompetence of Jimmy Carter to bring us back. Just imagine Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, as Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond Ingles</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/23/us-misandry/comment-page-1/#comment-59494</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond Ingles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:19:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/10/31/us-misandry/#comment-59494</guid>
		<description>Umm... no, Ivan. You took the wrong lessons from that. Just because the distribution of ability with women may be taller and narrower than that of men does &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; mean that there aren&#039;t &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; women with exceptional ability - even in areas traditionally regarded as &quot;male&quot;.

A few quotes from the article that you appear to have missed: &quot;Several recent works have questioned the whole idea of gender differences in abilities: Even when average differences are found, they tend to be extremely small. In contrast, when you look at what men and women want, what they like, there are genuine differences... Workaholics are mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.)... Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.&quot;

There may be good reasons that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be undesirable, but the fact that she&#039;s a woman isn&#039;t one of them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Umm&#8230; no, Ivan. You took the wrong lessons from that. Just because the distribution of ability with women may be taller and narrower than that of men does <i>not</i> mean that there aren&#8217;t <i>any</i> women with exceptional ability &#8211; even in areas traditionally regarded as &#8220;male&#8221;.</p>
<p>A few quotes from the article that you appear to have missed: &#8220;Several recent works have questioned the whole idea of gender differences in abilities: Even when average differences are found, they tend to be extremely small. In contrast, when you look at what men and women want, what they like, there are genuine differences&#8230; Workaholics are mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.)&#8230; Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.&#8221;</p>
<p>There may be good reasons that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be undesirable, but the fact that she&#8217;s a woman isn&#8217;t one of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

