Looking for Mr. Good Enough

There are a lot of women pundits,commentators,bloggers, and/or columnists who are against most of the goals of feminism - usually self-identified as pro-family, Conservative Republicans. Some of these ladies offer excellent insights and commentary and are some of the most valuable contributors to the war against feminism. Nancy Levant, Ann Coulter, Phillis Schafly are some of the most notable.

However I and other MRA bloggers have at times highlighted, reviewed and quoted from many of these influential women, there is another set of women who are anti-feminist -- at least politically -- but fail to connect the dots between the decline of Western Civilization and the advancement of feminism.

These ladies usually decry the horrors of abortion, advocate avoiding promiscuity, and write about the value the stay at home mother has for her family, her children and society at large.

Yet, they still speak of "the good things feminism has brought" and they still write and speak from the feminist's misandrist point of view with regards to men.

Take for example, this recent column by Townhall.com columnist, Suzanne Fields, and her recent column, Looking for Mr. Good Enough:

A bachelor acquaintance of mine, a prosperous man in his 40s, was new in town and wanted to meet the love of his life, to marry, and become a father and citizen (and voter). So, I organized a small cocktail party and invited several attractive women in their late 30s who are still looking for Mr. Right (and might be willing to settle for Mr. Good Enough). They're women with professional careers but want marriage and family, too.

They feel a mild panic that motherhood might pass them by. The single men they meet seem determined to remain bachelors. The men are having too much fun to give up their freedom.

Aaahhh...see the typical assumptions at work in this mindset. Men's reluctance to get married wouldn't have anything to do with the widespread disenfranchisement of men through no-fault divorce, female-biased family courts and the child-custody industry, now would it? Nah...the "child-man" is still having too much "fun."

Translation: Men no longer want to get married, it must be Men's fault!

It gets worse when she describes the caricature of a typical 20-something bachelor:

The Playboy of today is a beast of a different order, but a bit of a beast nevertheless. He's a young man in his 20s, refusing to grow up, with access to ATMs for instant money to spend on himself. You typically find him in the pages of Maxim magazine with movie heroes such as Ben Stiller, Jim Carey and Will Ferrell, indulging in grossed-out adolescent "Animal House" humor. He's uncultured, uncouth and unkempt, preferring beer to fine wine, skateboards to sports cars and teenage toys to higher status symbols of maturity. Kay Hymowitz calls him the "Child-Man in the Promised Land."

Sorry my dear, but the "status symbols of maturity" used to be a man defined by his family, his children, and most of all, his homemaker wife who proudly practiced her arts to create a happy home for her husband and kids. Thanks to the feminists and their war on the family, the majority of men that attempt to "grow up" and earn such "status symbols" nowadays are more likely than naught to find themselves in divorce court, ruined by child support,denied visitation,parental alienation of his children, alimony, false domestic violence accusations, etc.

There was a time when a man strove to become cultured, "couth" and "kempt," because this was the price of admission LADIES required to give men the status symbols of maturity - a family.

Women who complain about the "Child-man in the Promised Land" need to look in the mirror and face the reality that it was their precious "equality" and "liberation from the oppression of Patriarchy" that have given them the exact state of affairs they complain so bitterly about when they can no longer find "Mr. Good Enough."

Women wanted it all, and are bewildered when they find out "having it all" is impossible. Maybe one day they'll wake up and quit being surprised when they find out that "Mr. Good Enough" wants nothing to do with "Ms. Never Enough."

Adolescent Lust and Society's Double Standard

In Field Marshall Watkin's latest blog post, News Round up 2, he links to Coed Magazine's "Hot for Teacher: 18 Sexiest Sex Offenders" which highlights some of the more notorious cases of young, attractive (at least in most of these cases...Mary Kay Letourneau is pretty disgusting in my opinion,) public school teachers convicted of sexual relations with adolescent boys.

FMW, or course, makes a passing reference about the double standards of society:

The well known double standards between the application of the law (and the perception of the public) towards female criminals, especially sex offenders, continues with this article. I can’t see the title of ‘18 fittest male rapists’ being published somehow…

FMW is right, of course. But I think the double standards held by society with regards to adolescents having sex with adults regarding gender are the perfect example of the rank hypocrisy of feminist thinking - that the male gender is always at fault, while females are simply not ever held accountable. Young women are "exploited" while young men "get lucky."

When I was a 21 year old working construction and attending college, I was once hit on by my boss's 13 year old daughter...and it wasn't a coy, indirect attempt at seduction, but a straight up offer: "Wanna Fuck?" When I declined, she asked me incredulously "What...you think I don't know how to fuck?!"

While I was quite taken aback by this young child's straight forward directness, I never forgot it, because that that very moment, this young girl shattered my preconceived notions about the supposed ideal of the "fairer sex" mindset that our feminist-corrupted society had conditioned me to think of with regards to the female gender.

Here was the inevitable result of feminist ideology expressed...a young lady taught to believe that casual sex was her path to empowerment, that sexual pleasure was her right as a female to take wherever and whenever she desired it.

Yet, had I taken her up on her offer, and we were discovered, I could have been arrested and publicly excoriated in the media as a "rapist." And "taking advantage of an innocent, young girl."

No doubt about it...many of the boys that ended up having sex with the teachers in the article FMW linked to looked at their attractive teachers and passionately lusted after them and no doubt felt like they won the lottery having the opportunity to experience the carnal knowledge of these women. And most people in our society look at these cases from the outside, and other than most mother's of teenage boys, no doubt snicker and think "lucky boys." Many men (and I can admit that myself included) bemusedly think to themselves "Now where were these teachers when I was in school?"

But a 21 year old man and a 13 year old girl? The default reaction is abject horror...an innocent young girl "despoiled...violated...taken advantage of."

I mean, when one thinks further on this topic, what is a man to do? Ask any attractive female who is propositioning them for I.D.? I knew my Boss's daughter was only 13, but I can honestly say she could have passed herself off as 18 had I not known better.

Does THESE young ladies look underage?



Or these?



Young ladies can be just as lust filled and active and willing participants in seeking out sexual adventure from older men as young men all fantasize about doing so with older women...yet society looks at the case where the female is older and knowingly snicker at what most young men consider "great fortune," while a reversal of genders is considered a "horrific crime."

Never again should you read a story in the media about "statutory rape" between an adolescent female and an adult male and automatically take the default position that the male is a "predator taking advantage of an innocent young girl." No doubt there are young girls who are exploited and taken advantage of...just as young boys are - but there are plenty of young girls who know exactly what they are doing, know exactly what they want, and in fact may very well be the one exploiting an unsuspecting male's natural sex drive by deceiving him about her true age.

Idolizing the Single Mother and other thoughts on American Idol

Ok, I admit it...I enjoy watching American Idol. I've been watching it regularly for the past several seasons, and there are more than a few reasons as to why I found myself getting hooked on the show:

1) I'm a musician myself, so I do enjoy watching and listening to musical performance. I appreciate expressions of artistic talent, even if I don't particularly like the style or genre of music being performed.

2) Simon Cowell is a beacon of unashamed, brazen masculinity starring in prime time, network broadcast TV. There is no better example of the masculine, straight-line, logically based, in-your-face brutal honesty of Mr. Cowell; especially when it is contrast to Paula Abdul's(and to some extent, Randy Jackson's) emotive, feminine, feel-good, attempts to "soften the blow" of honest criticism.

3) It is certainly entertaining for it's "freak show" aspect of the auditions...to see how clueless, narcissistic and self-centered to the point of delusion so many people are in todays society is almost frightening. But it's even more entertaining to see such clueless delusion shattered by the unapologetic critique by Cowell.

I can sing on key and carry a tune. I have performed with a live band on more than a few occasions...in fact, I used to be in a band that got paid to play Hawaiian music for Weddings and Birthday Parties. But I KNOW that I DO NOT possess the kind of dynamic vocal talent necessary to even be competitive with the other contestants, let alone win. I cannot believe how clueless so many people are when it comes to the self assessment of their own talent and abilities.

Needless to say, as much as I enjoy the competition of American Idol, there are a couple of things that drive me bonkers about the show - and it mainly has to do with the 'production' and 'marketing' of certain contestants by giving an "in-depth" look into the lives of the contestants and hopefuls. Some of the stories are certainly touching and do create emotional attachments to these personalities, inspiring viewers to root for them.

One can certainly feel moved when watching the contestant who's Father passed away 2 days before her audition choke up while singing. It's blatant emotional manipulation to drive ratings...but I'm fine with it when we do have a legitimate reason to sympathize with a "humanizing" story like that.

But what drives me insane is how so many of the contestants proclaim their single mother hood as a badge of honor...as if it one of the biggest achievements for young women today to achieve! They are to be admired and worshiped for their courage! Their strength! Their bravery! Afterall, it's so admirable in todays day and age to breed out of wedlock bastards without Fathers in their lives!

Worse yet, the "in depth" features that often depict the day to day struggles of life ALWAYS place the single mother in the role of victim of the "deadbeat boyfriend."

There is no better indication of proof that our modern day society is Matriarchal and not the "Patriarchal Hegemony" the feminists constantly whine about. When Single Motherhood is celebrated, lionized and glamourized by media and society-at-large, it's safe to say the so-called "Patriarchy" is either dead or in it's last throes.

How to Turn A Free People Into Slaves

Many MRA bloggers have researched and written about the root cause of the gender wars started by the feminist movement were based on the deliberate, planned subversion of Western Culture by Communists.

When one looks at the current state of marriage and the Divorce industry, the proverbial proof is indeed in the pudding. The corrosive effects of the divorce industry on the entire mindset of a people is an insidious threat to a free society that has largely gone unrecognized by the mainstream.

Dr. Stephen Baskerville has written an excellent column entitled How to Turn A Free People Into Slaves, in which he plainly makes the case that the no-fault Divorce industry is a significant front in undermining a free society by empowering government authority to intrude into the most personal area of any individuals life; their family.

Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good.

While feminists push divorce-on-demand as a “civil liberty,” in practice divorce has become our society’s most authoritarian institution.

I'm sure any man who has been through the system would certainly agree that the machinery of the family court and child support system is about as authoritarian as it gets.

And while most divorces that happen in the West directly affect Men for the most part, one of the most deleterious effects the system inflicts upon society as a whole is the instilling of a mindset in children of a divorcing family with regards to the role government plays in one's own private life.

Using instruments of public criminal justice to punish private hurts turns the family into government-occupied territory. The children experience family life not as a place of love, cooperation, compromise, trust, and forgiveness. Instead they receive a firsthand lesson in tyranny. Empowered by the state and functioning essentially as a government official, the custodial parent can issue orders to the non-custodial parent, undermine his authority with the children, dictate the terms of his access to them, talk to and about him contemptuously and condescendingly in the presence of the children as if he were himself a naughty child – all with the backing of state officials.

Eventually the children understand that the force keeping away one of their parents is the police, who are the guarantors of the custodial parent’s supremacy. Thus the message the children receive about both the family and the state is that they are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies and even family members for personal grievances.

Oh but it gets even worse than that. The system also takes a woman who takes advantage of her position of power granted by the courts and law enforcement, and encourages the children to take an active part in reducing their father into a role of nothing more than a wage slave who's only involvement is the monthly child support check.

While many children are materially impoverished by family breakdown, in other cases the systematic bribery dispensed by the divorce industry extends to the children themselves, who may be rewarded for their cooperation with material opulence, forcibly extracted from their father and used to corrupt his children and give them too a stake in his plunder and exile.

The term "wage slave" is really a fitting one in describing a divorced father being crushed under the gears of the child support machine. But Baskerville makes an even better point that shows just how apropos it is to call it that:

It is not difficult to see that this is a highly unhealthy system to have in a free society. In fact, the logic is reminiscent of another system of domestic dictatorship that once tried unsuccessfully to co-exist with free civil government. Politically, the most powerful argument against slavery – and what eventually did more than any other to bring about the realization of how threatening it was to democratic freedom – was less its physical cruelty than its moral degeneracy: the tyrannical habits it encouraged in the slaveholder, the servile ones it fostered in the slave, and the moral degradation it engendered in both. Such dispositions were said to be incompatible with the kind of republican virtue required for free self-government.

Slavery was an institution that was antithetical to the tenets and ideals that founded America, and for the United States to continue to exist under them made a conflict with that institution inevitable. If only more people would wake up to the reality that the Institution of Divorce is in the same place today - as the very antithesis to a free people as a whole.

Divorce not only damages individual men, but society as a whole...for it plants the seeds of a mindset in each successive generation that increasingly accepts authoritarian rule of an ever-expanding and intrusive Government without question, and at the expense of the freedom and liberty of what was once a free and prosperous civilization.