Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Laboratory Mike

Main / Re: Doonesbury: The Death of Feminism?
Jul 18, 2006, 10:10 AM
Quote from: "MacKenzie"
The Last Generation?

Is this for real?

Is the "Social Transformation" complete?

Should we trust this idea that Feminism is going to die off -literally and figuratively?

Or is it just going to be disguised under a seemingly benign identity?

Personally, I think it's the latter.

I've seen too much Newspeak to see how easily it's done.  :roll:

I think it's te latter also.

An organism wants to stay alive, and most people will knowingly compromise their beliefs to avoid trouble. Feminists will do te same, which is why I hope that men wise up. We've got some work to do though.
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Lets bring it down to brass tacks.

Womanist movements(I'm using the word to lump together all abolitionists, suffragettes and feminists) have always exerted a far larger influence then their actual representation in the hierarchy of power. Suffragettes did not have a vote yet they successfully lobbied politicians to give them one. If those politicians had been in a patriarchal culture they would have been actively against women gaining any power. If they had been in an equitable culture they would have pointed at women's power as wives and mothers and said "checks and balances, m'lady, sorry."

Likewise women today comprise the minority of power positions in, for example, the corperate hierarchy, yet they exert far more influence then their presence should justify.

How do women manage this? What is this mysterious power that women have to force politicians (prior to attaining the vote), corperate heads, college deans, news editors... to do what they want?

Anyone want to take a stab at answering that?

You are hinting at a number of influences. I personally can identify two that exist at this moment.

1) You have the wife/girlfriend factor. During younger years, a man's sexual desires will cause him to do quite a lot for her, since he wants sex at some level. Also, you can consider the fact that the emotional bond causes the woman to become the man's closest advisor, and her advice might be very bad. Add that in with sexual manipulation (over at the Mancoat forum we call it "shaming tactics"), and a man who doesn't know better will be pulled under a given woman's influence. I'm sure you can dig up plenty of historical and modern examples...

2) You have women's organizations who seem to be able to do this at a second-image level. For those who don't know, second-image theories are theories that analyze groups of people as organisms. In this case, we see the first image, wives and girlfriends, exerting influence as one great organism, "women," against other organisms that were present, such as "business," "government," "the churches," and "men." To see how this happens, look at the way immigration is being handled right now. The "against immigration" group exerts influence by putting national media attention on the matter (remember the Minutemen movement and the controversy it caused?) The result is that "government" will be influenced by the fact that the "against immigration" group has been mobilized, and will provide a significant number of votes, not to mention the fact that images of angry armed men roving around the border are unacceptable. Now look at the "for immigration" organism. It is also getting national media attention, and has organized it's own voting machine. The fact that undocumented workers work for less money influences "business" into their favor, and the "business" organism thereby looks to exert influence on "government." Also, the promise of all the votes of naturalized illegal immigrants represents a prize to a significant number of those in "government." Who wins? It depends on the amount of power either group has, and who persists longer.

Now look at the "womanist" movements. Think of what benefits they can offer to organisms like "business" and "government." In particular, look at buyer loyalty and voter loyalty that is promised by advertising agencies and feminist groups, respectively. If the womanists groups are persistent enough, and the potential benefits are great enough (you'll get millions of votes if you do this), then other organisms will, typically, cave in. In theory, this means that any movement can come out of nowhere, and influence any authority it wants and win, if it can become large enough and pester a target authority long enough. This was true with feminism, gay rights, the union movement, democracy, pretty much everything. Referring back to Laborato's theorum, this is because the organism of "government" will act based on extrenal and internal influences, and even if internal influences such as beliefs are against a movement (such as feminism), it will not matter if said movement can have enough of an effect on *external* influences.

In other words, even if a patriarchal society did exist, the "woman first" organism overran it after generation upon generation of movements. Whether the first generation of "women-firsters" had planned to create the world we live in now, I don't know, but it does seem that we have seen a slow, methodical attack on men and masculinity for at least 100 years. Before then it was accepted that men and women were not perfect and that both had to "grow up and get along," but if you read your history, as early as the 20s the idea that women had the right to expect whatever they wanted from man came about, implying it didn't exist before. Like I said, I don't have a humanist explanation about why feminism came about, but I do think that, historically speaking, something like feminism comes into existance, gains power, and later wanes in the wake of another movement, or the collapse of a society. What the dynamics are, I don't know, but this seems to happen across cultures and across time.
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "Laboratory Mike"
For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal.

But they were put on a pedestal in a *Christian* context.

The established churches commit as much blasphemy as anyone else, and I don't see the Victorian Era as an exception. Disparities between what Christians did versus what God wants them to do has caused problems for as long as Christians have been around.

Since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink.

Perhaps it is because feminism offered a competing womanist paradigm that provided more benefits to women without as many restrictions?

This I can partially agree with. Laborato's Theorum (I came up with it, and will have the written article on my website soon) states that all behavior is a function of environment, genetics, and beliefs, and that beliefs are almost always constant. Typically, belief will resolve to acting purely in self-interest, and because of this, women chose to abandon the victorian-style power in favor of femnist-style power because they wanted 100% power with no responsibilities. However, that paradigm didn't exist until this century, so the more powerful women in the old days played on men's sense of religion. Now they are playing on men's sexual desires, but the game didn't change, which was self-interest.

I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.

Special Report: The American Church in Crisis

Church attendance is declining both absolutely and as a preportion of the population of the US.

That article didn't split up the denominations. As a whole the churches are shrinking, though Penetcostals and Southern Baptists are still experiencing growth. It may not last forever, but for now, in humanistic terms, they are providing an anchor for people mentally, and in spiritual terms, they are at least making an attempt to stand up for truth, though they have their problems.

Unfortunately, people who say they believe rarely attempt to do what is right. I personally believe that the exponentiating deception we are seeing will lead to some sort of disaster, kinda like Isaiah 57, but I won't make claims about it. Either way, when I signed on I never imagined that there would only be a few handfuls of men standing against what sometimes feels like a sea of hypocrites. However despite some of my own issues with a few churches, I will do what I can, and I hope you do what you can to make things right here in the MRA world Typhon. Even if you don't see things from my perspective, we're in this MRA deal regardless.
It looks like Typhon noted a few other things while writing. I'll put in one more answer.

Like what? Christians demand both women *and* men be chaste and not promiscuous or adulterous.

Is there anything that Christians demand of women that doesn't have a parallel demand for men?

The guy you were quoting wasn't quite right in saying that women had it harder, because there is equal accountability. In Old Testament law, both the man and woman were punished with death for adultery, incest, and a few others (in Leviticus 20), and in Deuteronomy 22, a married or betrothed woman who is caught lying with a man cannot accuse him of rape once caught, given it can be demonstrated she had opportunity to cry for help. In other words, we see the first law that deals with a false accusation of rape coming from deep in the Old Testament. And, of course, don't forget the slew of warnings about adulterous women all throughout Proverbs. Based on these quotes, you could almost say that the Bible was the original MRA literature before the Movement existed, but then again, it's goal is to help believers, and not to take sides in our politics.
It seems I've come by just in time to make a particular point:

"The greastest heresy of the 20th and early 21st cetury is that the Bible is a set of instructions about how to deal with 20th century social issues."

I suppose that people have been trying to force the Bible to say one thing or another, in the sense that preists of most every religion have been trying to get God to join their side. But the Bible speaks for itself, and if more people read it, they'd find that it doesn't say much about social issues.

It mostly talks about God, and what our standing relative to Him is, and how to change it. Unsurprisingly.

Of course, because we live in a physical world, there are also physical needs, and physical distractions that take someone away from God. There is a lot written about how to deal with such things. One interesting and relevant teaching is that it is better if a man does not marry and instead fully devote his time to God, but if he can't handle doing so because he has a strong sex drive, he is encouraged to marry. Same for women. You can read it in 1 Corinthinans 7. Keep in mind that, once again, these things aren't about how a society ought to be, so much as how a believer can minimze physical distractions and maximize his relationship/standing with God. It does so to such an extent that it scares someone who can fully comprehend what it is really saying.

To answer the question... the other problem we have in trying to interpret something that is thousands of years old is the fact that we are living under a different set of conditions here is the modern West than the people of... everyone until about the 20s, and still all people in the 3rd world nations. A housewife then is not like a housewife now, nor was life then like life now. Think about simple things like cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids. Such things would have taken all day instead of an hour, and men would not have been able to stop at McDonalds for lunch. There was no social safety net either; if you went broke you were out on the streets, and you often starved. That's why the relationship dynami then was one in which the man was the breadwinner, and the wife the bread-maker. The man could not do both like he is forced to now, and if he was in those times, he would have worn out quickly, thereby being unable being able to bring home enough money and/or food for the family to survive. So, in a move of brilliance, the family unit was designed so that it would have the best possible odds of suriving; the one most able to work outside the home goes first, and the second if needed/able. If not, it was the job of the one staying at the home, usually the woman, to make sure that everything the man wasn't doing was taken care of. I think Angry Harry wrote a good article on it, which indicates that the way things worked until very recently are a matter of fact, and not of any matriarchal conspiracy.

For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal. since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink. I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.

Those are my two bits.
Main / What happened to
Jun 14, 2006, 10:10 PM
I know the team behind feministing...

They made the same statment on their own forum: it was planned to be run for one year, and the real Amynda likely didn't continue it because she was tired of writing her posts. The other members want to continue it, so it might come back.

I'll keep you posted.
Main / MGTOW on Wikipedia
Jun 05, 2006, 07:09 PM
It's working now.

By the way, some guys from Mancoat are now getting to work on the MAW. Maybe some guys here who haven't heard of it might want to visit, and perhaps contribute...
The news article:

And if you dig a bit deeper, the study:

Here's the text of the article:
Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence

Newswise -- A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman, according to Murray Straus, founder and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

Straus' new research also found that dominance by the female partner is even more closely related to violence by women than is male dominance. These results call into question the widely held belief that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that when women are violent it is self defense.

"In the 35 years since I began research on partner violence, I have seen my assumptions about prevalence and etiology contradicted by a mass of empirical evidence from my own research and from research by many others," Straus said. "My view on partner violence now recognizes the overwhelming evidence that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men. However, when women are violent, the injury rate is lower."

Straus will present his controversial research at the Trends in Intimate Violence Intervention conference in New York City May 22-25, 2006. This research is part of the International Dating Violence Study, a multinational study of violence against dating partners by university students. A consortium of researchers around the world collected data from 13,601 students at 68 universities in 32 nations.

In the paper, Straus calls for an end to the focus on men as the only perpetrators of dating violence, saying the refusal to recognize the multi-causal nature of the problem is hampering the effort to end domestic violence and ignoring half the perpetrators. As recently as December 2005, the National Institute of Justice refused to consider applications for funding that dealt with male victims.

"Changes in policy that acknowledge men are not the only perpetrators of partner violence are needed immediately," Straus said. "It is time to make the prevention and treatment effort one that is aimed at ending all family violence, including spanking children, not just violence against women."

Straus is the author or co-author of more than 200 publications, including "Beating the Devil Out Of Them: Corporal Punishment By American Parents and Its Effects on Children." More information on the International Dating Violence Study and papers reporting results are available at

Bit by bit, things are slipping through the holes of the lace curtain...

Speaking of, was LibertyUNH involved in this at all? Kudos to him if he sparked this.
Main / MGTOW on Wikipedia
Jun 05, 2006, 04:17 PM
Quote from: "TerryGale"
Lab Mike, this site not found..  Men's Activism Wiki - A wiki dedicated to men's rights..

It seems to change every few months. I'll fix it.
Main / MGTOW on Wikipedia
Jun 04, 2006, 04:39 PM
You can do it by clicking the "edit" function for that page, and put in what you want to say. I am not an expert with Wiki code, but you can learn it easily enough. Just copy what the others have done.

So far, it seems that there is quite a bit of trouble being caused voer there now. At the very least, Wiki editors will learn that the Men's movement does indeed exist, and is wants others to know.
Main / MGTOW on Wikipedia
Jun 03, 2006, 10:43 PM
Quote from: "manhoodsbliss"

i like ur approach mens activist man. i will definetley be checkig out this independant womens forum.

see im only 21 so i have a lot to learn and i appreciate my views may appear childish or ignorant, but thats why i came here. i might as well learn something.


manhoodsblisshahahahahahaahahahaaha how amazing. i have made no personal attacks on peoples intellect because i dont judge people so harshly.



I am late tot his post, and my point to make is probably exhausted already... but please, don't write in all caps. It represents shouting, and is quite inconsiderate in a forum.

For now, I'll be analyzing some of your posts. I haven't been here in a while. But for now, I would most certainly suggest that you read this article by Angry Harry:

You seem to show some interest about "whether our gender and its characteristics are socially constructed," and in the case of this article, if you aren't initially offended, provides a different framework of what is and isn't "socially constructed."

And one more thing, could you please explain what your dissertation is about, and what you are studying? I am a student like you (same year, in fact), and am doing research with hopes of getting published. It's always interesting to see what others are doing.
Main / Search terms
Apr 19, 2006, 08:04 PM
Main / NZ men go for the jugular.
Apr 12, 2006, 08:21 PM
The protests had shaken the lawyers involved, he told NZPA, and had been intimidating for their families and neighbours.

"Their children have, in some cases, been frightened and quite disturbed by the experience."

It's always in the "best interests of the children" isn't it?

Anyway, I am glad that we have more guys speaking up, and that you guys are letting lawyers know that they cannot live comfortably while destroying the lives of men and fathers.
Main / U.S. too slow on pedophiles
Apr 05, 2006, 08:06 PM

Good point. We should take into consideration that, at least at first, the kid was probably running his webcam business on the sheer fact that he had few friends otherwise, and needed someone to talk to. And I do agree that we lost the point that people were indluging in kiddie porn here, which is a serious crime.

Still, I wonder... what caused the change in heart? Do you think the kid is trying to move on/break away, or perhaps he has taken his attention-getting to a new level?