Last fall, Arj
una Ardagh and Gay Hendricks shared the Manifesto for the Conscious Man on Facebook and then, more recently, a video, called “Dear Woman.” Arjuna also posted The Art of Worshiping Women at the Huffington Post. These pieces triggered strong reactions in many, ranging from appreciation to anger and everything in between.
The intention was clearly to honor women. And, many women felt acknowledged, and appreciated the collective apology from men. Yet, it was also inadvertently dishonoring, and even insulting, to many men, including my husband John.
We could say men have just as much to be honored for, and women have just as much to apologize for. Maybe even more.
I invite you to read the posts above and below.
In any regard, we decided to balance out the story here.
While John wrote the first draft, together we shaped it into “The Manifesto for the Conscious Woman.” We submitted this to the Huffington Post in December 2010, but they felt it was too “edgy” and “not a fit” for their audience. We’re now sharing the Manifesto at my Everyday Inner Peace blog, because one of the biggest keys to inner peace is recognizing and acknowledging reality “as it is.” We may like reality or we may be repulsed by reality. Regardless, “seeing clearly” is where sanity begins.
To all the men in the world, I truly honor you.
And for all the ways my sisters and I have caused you suffering, hardship or pain, I offer up a collective apology, as Arjuna and Gay offered to women some time ago.
And to my dear sisters, please recognize the format of “A Manifesto for the Conscious Woman” is simply a mirror of Arjuna and Gay’s “A Manifesto for Conscious Men.” Just as Arjuna and Gay didn’t intend to dishonor or insult men, we’re not either.
Here’s to our collective healing between genders. There is clearly a lot of pain we’ve inflicted both ways. This piece isn’t about the solutions to our healing, but an essential awareness that’s needed to begin the process.
This manifesto is written in the spirit of truth. If parts seem harsh, perhaps it’s because we are so used to politically correct talk these days and we recoil from straight talk when we hear it. Besides we had to toss in a little humor to keep it interesting. Please know everything said here is based in fact. (You’ll find a link to endnotes at the bottom.)
Arjuna and Gay encourage men to apologize for this and to promise that. Isn’t it only fair for us to ask women to also honor, apologize and promise in the same way?
Manifesto for the Conscious Woman
As a woman to men:
- I respect and honor you for providing strength, stability and protection for our well-being, generation after generation.
- I respect and honor your intelligence, leadership and willingness to provide.
- My sisters and I deeply appreciate your unique gifts. And, throughout time we owe you a few apologies. Together we’d like to acknowledge the ways we’ve taken advantage of your generosity, flexibility and ingenuity. As we’ve fought for greater equality, independence and our “sense of self,” we’ve eroded our sacred relationships with you – and in many ways eroded some of the foundations of civilization. I recognize not all of my sisters have wronged you, and we can’t turn back the hands of time. Yet collectively, as conscious women, we can apologize, make new promises and recommit to respecting and honoring you.
- I honor you for providing for my children, taking responsibility, even when they were not your own. I apologize for deceiving men about paternity since the beginning of time, a fraud by which all of history’s frauds shrink to insignificance. I apologize for getting impregnated by the alpha bad boy and then, knowing he will not stick around to raise his progeny, lying to a nice, reliable beta provider about his paternity in order to get him to support me.
- I honor you for providing for women before you provide for yourself. I honor you for the endless hours you’ve toiled in labs, so that I may live a long and healthy life. I apologize for demanding that all the developed countries of the world spend far more on cures for women’s diseases, while practically ignoring diseases that strike and kill men at higher rates.
- I honor you for remaining steadfast through my often irrational and emotional storms.
- I honor you for being a gentleman. I apologize for demanding that men act like gentlemen while exempting myself from acting like a lady. I apologize for poisoning the relationship between men and women with my anger. I apologize for keeping up the pretense of being sugar and spice and everything nice while I am more often the one to initiate physical violence in dating and relationships.
- I honor you for giving me the freedom to make my own choices about what I do with my body. I take responsibility for our epidemic of out of wedlock births. I apologize for socializing the costs of my undisciplined sons and emotionally damaged daughters, while fulfilling my own desires – and minimizing the importance of the role of the father.
- I apologize for gladly taking a seat in the lifeboat while thousands of men went to an icewater grave that April night. I apologize for forgetting all the other times throughout history that men have sacrificed their lives for women.
- I apologize for making an issue out of the rare practice of female genital mutilation, while remaining silent regarding the common practice of circumcision.
- I honor you for giving me a voice in shaping society through the right to vote. I apologize for bringing my instincts for security over freedom into politics and eroding America’s freedom by pushing socialist policies that are bankrupting this country.
- I honor you for your risk-taking, pushing boundaries and competitive nature, so essential for progress. I apologize for contributing to a suffocating nanny state, complete with helmet laws and prohibitions on dodge ball, where everyone is a winner and has high self-esteem.
- I honor you for creating millions of jobs through enterprise, ingenuity and hard work. Thank you for inviting me to work beside you. I apologize for disrupting the workplace. I apologize for bringing my hypergamous instincts and provocative dress into the workplace, thereby disordering what was once a well functioning and highly productive male hierarchy. I apologize for introducing sexual harassment policies that destroy workplace cohesion.
- I respect and honor all the soldiers, police and firemen who have sacrificed their lives to keep me, and my family, free and safe. I apologize for pushing crippling double standards into the military and first responder agencies. I apologize for demanding that as a “soldier” I can pass physical fitness tests at levels that would constitute a failure for a man and then demanding to be treated with equal respect. I apologize for the deaths I have caused by forcing myself into fire departments when I could not pull the victims out of the burning building.
- I acknowledge that boys and girls have different learning styles and we have radically shifted education to support girls. I realize how important men are as teachers and I apologize for driving men out of the teaching industry on fears of pedophilia accusations. I apologize to little boys for subjecting them to a feminized education experience that impedes learning, denigrates men and drives them out of higher education.
- I honor you for wanting to fully develop your mind so you can maximize your contribution to humanity. I apologize for watering down the high-stakes, high-abstraction, high difficulty standards boys thrive on in exchange for the low difficulty continuous assessment that favors girls. I apologize for all the boys that would be valedictorians if intelligence mattered rather than the ability to perform mind-numbing tasks.
- I appreciate men for creating room for me in higher education. I apologize for squandering society’s scarce higher education resources. I apologize for using affirmative action laws to exclude a better qualified man from the first-rate graduate program and then quitting my “career” after only a few years in business.
- I apologize to American industry for eroding the talent pool it desperately needs. I apologize for crippling taxpayer funded medical systems around the world by forcing taxpayers to put me through medical school and then quitting my “career” after 10 years to have a family. I apologize for all the people sitting for hours in squalid hospital waiting rooms as a result.
- I honor and respect men for providing the safety net that I know is always there should I need it. I apologize for complaining about how we need better facilities for homeless women while 90% of the homeless are men. I apologize for complaining about how good men have it when men do all the dirty jobs and suffer 95% of all work-related deaths.
- I honor you for creating a legal system that protects my rights. I apologize for using that legal system to create a police state built around a self-serving domestic violence industry. I apologize for taking advantage of family courts to strip men of their children and fortunes because I lied about how he hit me or because I wanted out of the marriage because I did not feel “fulfilled,” choices courts routinely deny to men. I humbly acknowledge that most domestic violence incidents are started by women, and that sadly, the majority of child abuse is caused by women. I apologize for calling men “deadbeat dads” while using family courts to estrange honorable men from their own children.
- I honor you for the long-standing practice of taking my word over one of your brothers, while protecting me, and my anonymity. I apologize for destroying the lives of innocent men with false rape accusations. I apologize for not letting the media tell the truth about how often my sisters lie about rape.
- I appreciate you for taking on the “honey-do’s” while still putting in long days at work. I apologize for complaining about how men do not do their fair share of the work around the house when studies show that when work outside and inside the home are taken collectively, men do more work.
- I honor your stamina and drive to provide for our family and me. I apologize for complaining about how men make more money while I choose to study English instead of engineering and while I choose to take “career breaks” and not to work late and on weekends.
- I honor you for creating so many means to spread information and entertainment around the world. I am saddened this tool often denigrates men. I apologize for creating commercials that make fun of men getting punched and kicked in the balls while holding such behavior to women as unacceptable. I acknowledge how virtually every show on TV portrays men as bumbling idiots while portraying women as smart, when the facts show much the opposite.
- I honor your strength and athletic ability. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to enjoy participating in sports too. I apologize for eroding America’s standing in sports. I apologize for demanding that freakish girls be allowed to play on the boys teams but refusing to let boys on girls teams. I apologize for destroying collegiate sports by threatening Title IX lawsuits wherever men are over-represented in athletics. I apologize to all the male athletes who will never have a chance to live their dream. I apologize to America for all the Americans who will not be standing on the Olympic winners podium as a result.
- I honor you for the world’s greatest religions, which have provided me hope, meaning and a guiding philosophy in life. I acknowledge that true religion is a pure and good abstraction created by men, not because they excluded women, but because the female mind rarely dwells in abstraction and almost never creates it. It’s simply less interesting to most of us.
- I appreciate the great gift men gave to women – civilization. I apologize for refusing to acknowledge just how nasty, brutish and short my life would be without this gift. I apologize for not acknowledging that men created civilization because women are incapable of doing so because of our limited capability for and general aversion to abstraction. I promise to remember that without men, civilization would grind to a halt in short order. I promise to remember that men build houses and women live in them.
- I honor you for your fighting spirit and recognize how essential it was to our survival as a species. I promise to stop complaining about how violent men are. I acknowledge that I am here today because of battles fought by men, while I stood on the sidelines cheering them on. I promise to remember that I am the product of an experiment that had a one-in-a-million chance of success. I promise to remember that not long ago, humanity clung to survival in tiny numbers and then, in a flash, went from this miserable condition to masters of the earth, walking the moon, surveying distant planets and penetrating interstellar space. I promise to remember that we owe this incredible rise to strife and competition – nature’s supreme court, from whose verdict there is no appeal. I will remember that through the millennia strong men culled weak ones so that I, bereft of the genes of the vanquished, may be strong. This is the reproductive function of the male and I promise to respect where that has taken us.
- I appreciate the grandeur of what has been wrought by men. I promise, the next time I find myself high atop a skyscraper or crossing a great bridge, to take in its majesty and appreciate the men who took it from imagination to reality. I promise, that when I go to my computer to write an angry ad-hominem attack on the authors of this Manifesto, that I will take a minute to appreciate what a miracle that machine is, and to honor the giants who conceived of the science behind it. I promise to remember that nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. I honor men for having the intellect and drive to so painstakingly bring nature’s laws, so mysterious and profound, into the human consciousness so that I may enjoy these wonderful things.
- I honor you for giving me my reproductive rights. I apologize for demanding of men responsibility where I have yielded no control. I apologize for stripping men of all reproductive rights and demanding that they alone be excluded from one of the foundations of all civilized legal systems – that one cannot be held responsible for what one has no control over. I apologize for telling men that they have no right to tell me what I do with my body and then forcing them into 18 years of indentured servitude as a result of my choice to have sex and my choice to have the baby.
- I honor you for your integrity and unwavering sense of responsibility. As much as I don’t like to admit it, I see how my sisters and I demand rights while avoiding responsibility when it comes to evolving civilization. I acknowledge that never before in the history of humanity has such a spoiled and privileged group existed as modern western women. I apologize for demanding that I be given the opportunity to have a “soldier experience” while fighting legislation that would subject me to forcible conscription as men are. I recognize that rights must always be commensurate with responsibilities and that women throughout history were not denied anything that they were not held responsible for; they were denied the vote because no civic responsibilities were demanded of them.
- I honor you for creating a system of justice that makes the world a safer place. I apologize for fomenting and taking advantage of the rampant bias against men in the criminal justice system.
- I honor you for your commitment and respect for the environment. I apologize for accusing men of destroying the world. As a result of the genius of men, we now live in a world that is safer and cleaner than ever before and that the planet is not in danger, but thriving.
- I honor your commitment to the institution of marriage, even when it means sacrificing. I apologize for eroding this key foundation of civilization. I apologize for listening to all those shrill lesbian feminists years ago that told me that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, that gender is a social construct, and that a women can have the sexual freedom of a man with no consequences. I apologize for pushing for no-fault divorce laws and using those laws to create an epidemic of divorce theft. I apologize for whining that men will not commit when I have made marriage toxic for men. I vow not to complain, as I grow old and miserable alone with my cats watching Eat, Pray, Love.
- I promise that when I see men dominating at the top I will also look down, where I will see men concentrated at the bottom. I promise to remember that the men I see at the top are there not because of good-ol-boy networks but because they are the brightest, most ambitious and most driven members of the human race and that the men I see at the bottom, the homeless, the unemployed, the incarcerated, and the hopeless, are there because it is men and men alone that we allow to fall through the cracks.
- I promise to remember that one cannot rise to great heights without sinking occasionally to great depths. I promise to remember that the Hitlers and Stalins that men have produced only serve to shine the light on the greatness that men have produced. I promise to read the works of the great writers and listen to the music of the great composers to remind myself of that.
- I promise not to confuse honoring women with denigrating men. I promise not to think less of myself for acknowledging men. We all have gifts and strengths and no one deserves preferential worship.
Personal Note from Mary: I had several visceral reactions when I read the first draft of the Manifesto for the Conscious Woman. It was a mix of shock, compassion, remorse, and insult. But again, being conscious is about recognizing reality for what it is. Sometimes, reality isn’t easy to swallow. Instead of throwing an emotional temper-tantrum and “agreeing to disagree,” I asked questions to better understand the facts. Some truths were easier to embrace than others. While I would’ve personally chosen “softer” language in places, I support the direct style. As a woman, I’ve come to appreciate each portion of the manifesto, even those most confronting. I believe many other women will feel the same as I do, as we deeply honor men for their gifts, and acknowledge how women have taken advantage of these gifts. Some people will be pissed off, angry and insulted. Some will solemnly nod their heads at the harsh truths. Some will get curious, and seek to understand. Some will allow their emotional reactions to rule, digging in their heels in defiance. Whatever your initial response; please note that no statement is a personal attack on you individually. It’s an acknowledgment of some harsh realities that are mostly kept out of mainstream media.
It’s my hope everyone ultimately leaves with a deeper appreciation of men’s unique gifts and their undeniable contributions to society. And may we all find peace in our differences.
John Vernet Cole is co-founder of two clean-tech firms including a renewable energy company and an advanced technology transportation company. He holds a Bachelors degree in Chemistry from the United States Military Academy at WestPoint and a Masters degree from University of Southern California. He served as an officer in the US Army and has over 20 years of experience in aerospace and biotechnology. He is an accomplished sailor and commercial pilot, with long-time interests in history, economics, politics and men’s rights. John lives in southern California and is happily married to his wife Mary. Together they co-lead conversations about truth, reality and politics at http://www.theconsciouscitizen.com
Mary Allen, CPCC, MCC is America’s Inner Peace Coach, author of The Power of Inner Choice, speaker and host Conversations with the Masters interviewing best-selling authors and speakers. Her clients include transformational leaders and successful entrepreneurs. She helps “conscious achievers” experience greater everyday inner peace, as they realize their inspired goals. Mary leads groups and retreats focused on inner peace. Mary is a graduate of University of Wisconsin (Madison), and both CTI and Coach U. She enjoys yoga, walks on the beach, and engaging conversations with her husband John.
Thank you.
You’re welcome Dave. Thanks for reading and commenting on the Manifesto for Conscious Women 🙂
Mary, you and John did an amazing job here. I loved Arjuna’s articles/manifestos and also love this creation of yours. I agree with every point. Both men and women have dishonored each other in the past, and even if individually we are not guilty of the ways cited in either of the manifestos, we have in some way of our own none the less. To honor, love and respect both men and women, masculine and feminine, for all they bring to the world, is one of the greatest gifts we can bestow on humanity. Thank you for laying out the truth for us to collectively own.
Lena,
Really love how you stated this…
While certainly there will be few women who have wronged men in all the ways stated in the Manifesto, we all have… in some way. That’s not about shaming ourselves or making ourselves feel guilty, but simply acknowledging it, so we may make more conscious choices moving forward.
Here’s to:
Great article! You and John have done an amazing job of honoring men in a way that has never been done, but is hugely deserved. Very emotional to read but I totally agreed with every point. My husband and I have had many convos about how many aspects of our culture have ignored men. Thank you for balancing it all out and bringing these topics and facts top of mind for me & others.
Thanks Kristen! Yes, so many aspects of our culture have ignored men. Really says a lot about you as a woman to find a way to agree with every point. I know many women will be challenged in doing that. Here’s to acknowledging our men.
Wow !! Ouch !!
Do I ever pick up a a massive amount “male anger” and defensiveness in this ….. Wowsa ……. similar to the feminist anger which was necessary to experience on our way to equality.
Several times you speak of inner peace as acknowledging reality “as it is.” Who is to define what “it” is? Certainly not this manifesto. A quote from Anne Wilson Schaef says it best: “It is not necessary to deny another’s reality in order to affirm my own.”
Her books (quite old now) described an “addicted society” and a “living process society” both of which are gender neutral. The latter ~ a living process sociey ~ is where I find inner peace, and yes, men are certainly included there ~ where each is responsible for their actions, choices, emotions, and what they bring to the world.
I hope John finds inner peace from his turmoil and the pain women have caused in his life ….
I can totally understand why and how this manifesto was not selected by Huffington Post. It is much too harsh, blaming and self-grandizing …. almost either/or; black/white. Yes, certainly, we can pick out some “truths” here … just as we could pick out “truths” in the original Apology to Women … but really…this is WAY over the top
with love, honor and gratitude for all people in the world who have pure hearts and who truly care (with their actions) about others, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion ….
With little (if any apology) for much of what is listed in this manifesto….yes, agreeing to disagree…with respect for your right to vent.
Jacquelyn
Jacquelyn,
Appreciate you sharing candidly, and I hear you. As we worked on this piece over Thanksgiving in Holden Beach, NC in the company of friends, they teased John with the new nickname, “Angry White Man.” Which was always couched with humor and light-heartedness. No doubt, there is some of that which fueled this Manifesto. Just as the feminist anger was needed to help women be acknowledged as human beings, and not as women… maybe the “male anger” is needed to ultimately rebalance the respect.
I define reality as what is observed objectively before we add our own meaning, story or interpretation to it. Or have it exaggerated or minimized with feeling and emotion. Not always the easiest to do, since feeling and thought arises almost automatically.
Not sure I understand what a “living process society” is about… though I don’t believe we can ignore the fact that there are two genders, and they are different. Women have strengths over men. And men have strengths over women. That’s not a bad thing… that, is simply reality. To deny we have difference and are equal is delusional.
Definitely agree this Manifesto is on the harsh side… and, there isn’t anything here that isn’t grounded in truth. If there is something specific you find is not true… truly happy to discuss.
Mary
Thanks for sharing these. Much of it I find refreshing. However in the apology to men piece, with all of its valuable elements, I find evidence of a political stance that is even more repressive than what they are apologizing for.
Keep your apologies! Who needs them.
Hi Mary and John, when I first saw the title of this article I was moved and thought to myself ‘oh this is going to make me cry’. But in reading the article I found myself getting angry and saying ‘oh this is bull$&*#!’. Not all of it, but many of the things that are cited are direct blows to things have been needed in order for women to reach the level of equality we curently have on the planet which isn’t complete equality yet. There are horrible things that women do, have done and likely will continue to do to the wonderful strong generous men in their lives but I feel like this article went too far in apologizing for sexual harrassmen policies (much needed in my perspective), and many, many other examples given in my perspective are patently false, misleading and truly one sided in their view. The changes that are happening on the planet that you are describing as favoring women are merely a transitional phase needed to bring us to a more balanced state. I think that on many of the ints raised here we will have to agree to disagree. I am disaqppointed in what I though would be an authentic expression of appreciation and taking of responsibility in regard to the broader experience of gender differences and roles that turned out to be social and political commentary.
Rebekah,
Thank you so much for sharing your comments so openly. I agree, many things cited… like sexual harassment laws have been needed. And, at the same time, many women (not all) have taken advantage of this. That’s a serious impact on men and the workplace. Doesn’t mean we should do away with them, but perhaps simply acknowledge the downside of sexual harassment laws. We could also say there are thousands, if not millions of other legitimate sexual harassment incidents that go unreported.
Would love to address anything you found false or misleading.
Certainly this entire piece is one-sided, just as A Manifesto for Conscious Men was. There have been wrong-doings to both men and women. This post is focusing on what our sisters have done over time.
It’s true… largely because my hubby wrote the first draft, that this isn’t necessarily a “feel-good” piece. Sorry to disappoint in that regard. But, each one of these statements is something every woman can choose to own.
Hello Mary,
Your post today inspired me to write a blog entry around my own relationship to healing Masculine and Feminine aspects of my Self.
The entry includes a link to this post. Here is my link:
http://www.atlantaschooloftantrayoga.com/blog/suppression-of-the-feminine-and-tantric-healing-of-men-and-woman/
Sincerely, Jeff
Thank you to all who commented on this blog post. Some of you have criticized this post on the basis that it contains factual errors. Can anyone tell us where these errors are?
Dear Mary,
Wow. First let me say, when I saw you and your husband John had written a Manifesto, I welcomed the opportunity to gain insight into the experience of the masculine and make heartfelt apologies for points of injustice. In my own relationship, the harm that men have felt as we women have worked to create our place in the world has definitely come up. I have looked at it from many sides, trying to maintain my own integrity while showing compassion and kindness toward him, as well as toward his perspectives. So I appreciate the intention you and John had of helping address this issue. I hope you will follow through this response to the end.
The thing is, this Manifesto does not feel at all Conscious to me. It feels like a reaction to the insult John felt at reading Arjuna and Gay’s piece, resulting in a defiant backlash of anger. It does not seem like a “mirror” to me, partly because the tones are completely different, which sets them apart. Your piece, for example, reverts to name-calling like “bumbling idiot,” “spoiled,” “shrill,” and “freakish” and says that women are just “whining.” I don’t consider this a “direct style” of “straight talk” that I am recoiling from because I am not used to the truth. Name-calling is something we were taught as children is a form of bullying. That it isn’t cool and certainly isn’t a way to move toward deeper understanding. As a woman, I recognize that I cannot fully read either of these Manifestos through the eyes of the masculine. I am trying. However, if you were to step out of the energy that caused yours and John’s Manifesto to be created in such a voice, I think you may feel differently about it as a mirror of Arjuna’s and Gay’s. Or about it coming from a place of Consciousness.
You state that “being conscious is about recognizing reality for what it is.” You ask us to “Please know everything said here is based in fact.” You also say that when you yourself read this Manifesto, some “truths were easier to embrace than others.” If I could know the points in this Manifesto were “truths” then I could just fully sit in my response to them. However, I feel it is actually deeply dangerous to label many of the points made in the Manifesto as “facts” or “truths” or “reality.” For example, let’s look at the statement that “the majority of child abuse is caused by women.” According to the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, “Abusers are men in most cases, whether the victim is a boy or a girl. Women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported against boys and about 6% of cases reported against girls.” http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/child-sexual-abuse.asp I hope you can see that even if you disagree with these findings, or if there are other studies that came up with different figures, to simply state that most child abuse is caused by women, as if it is an undisputed fact, is simply inexcusable in my view.
Also, you include as “fact” several political ideas that are widely discussed and debated from many sides. Such things as: socialist policies are eroding America’s freedom and bankrupting this country; the planet and the environment are thriving; and our education system is skewed to a feminized standard that denigrates boys. Given that these are at times heatedly debated viewpoints (though I think there are only a handful of scientists these days that don’t agree that climate change is an issue), I believe it is dangerous on a spiritual and political level to imply that any adverse reaction or disagreement with such “facts” is just a way of being unconscious. That, ironically, feels to me like a very unconscious viewpoint, and another potential way of engaging in avoidance.
The thing is, I was excited to sit with whatever reactions came up when I read this Manifesto. To feel the healing power of being challenged in my views and my biases and to let them soften and to come out more complete as a result. It seems there is no doubt that there has been a lot of pain and a lot of healing needed for all people. But I have read John’s and your Manifesto many times now. And I will continue to mull it over. And unfortunately, when the distortions mentioned above are presented as fact, there is very little room to allow the intention of healing to enter. And when you add to that by implying that most women lie about being raped? And that women are eroding the talent pool America so desperately needs? And you blame women for ruining the workplace through our provocative dress and sexual harassment policies? Wow, I don’t feel these are constructive challenges to my viewpoint that I need to sit with. Instead, the words misogyny and vitriol begin to boil over in me because this Manifesto then feels like a disrespectful and destructive form of scapegoating. I recognize many men have felt scapegoated by women too. Which it seems is part of why you and John wanted to create this Manifesto. So why continue and indeed escalate a paradigm you are feeling wounded by? I am all for sitting with masculine pain and helping it heal. But not when it comes in the form of an attack on women, and that is what this feels like to me. I recognize that others will feel differently about it. But that’s at least some of my point. The very notion that there is even a gender divide, or that people will have different reactions to yours and Arjuna’s Manifestos speaks to the fact that there is not one truth that dictates experience. Which I hope you can see challenges the conviction that this Manifesto is “the truth.”
I could go on, but I don’t even know how to fully unpack here the concepts put out about a “self-serving domestic violence industry” (have either of you volunteered with battered women and children?); the narrow, dare I say arrogant notion of “true religion,” (I actually feel fully capable as a woman of connecting with the abstract nature of my True Self); or the total dismissal of the concept of gender as a social construct. It seems the gender binary framework you and John operate out of does not allow room for the gender fluidity that is normative for many people in queer communities. This exclusion is too bad and hurtful in ways perhaps you are unaware of or are aware of and choose not to engage.
Yes, I thank men for giving me my “right to vote.” And my “reproductive rights.” And for giving me “an opportunity to enjoy participating in sports too.” Yet it is not so much that we were “given” these rights. Women (with some men by their sides) fought hard for these rights, with considerable resistance by many of the men that finally gave in. History shows that for most, it was not simply out of the goodness of their hearts. And it is important to note that white women were luckier in some cases than many other categories of people, having been granted the right to vote, for example, when people of color were still not even considered human in many cases. Yes, there is still a lot of work to be done for all people to be treated with the respect they deserve.
I also thank the group of mostly men that invented this computer I am responding to you on. I truly do. I am not sure if you feel my response is an “ad-hominim attack” because I can’t find that in the dictionary. I am guessing you mean an “ad hominem” attack which is:
1. “directed against a person rather than against his arguments”
2. “based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason”
(Collins English Dictionary)
I feel my comments are reasonable and are directed at the framework, tone and especially the sometimes mislabeling of ideas as truths and facts. I don’t actually feel animosity towards either of you as people, just a deep sadness at where you chose to take what I think could have been a much more helpful response to the original Manifesto. I am sure some will find this helpful, as evidenced by the comments so far. But I think for many (also evidenced by the comments here), it will do exactly the opposite of what you envision in helping heal the divide, contributing to widening the gap. Perhaps for those of us reacting against this Manifesto, it could be easy for some to dismiss us as people not willing to look at our own stuff. But that feels to me like a very narrow view of Consciousness and Truth.
Sincerely,
Katherine
P.S. I can’t stop without pointing to the absolute mean-spirited nature of: “I vow not to complain, as I grow old and miserable alone with my cats watching Eat, Pray, Love.” Was this the part that was supposed to be funny? I guess I missed that humor part eluded to.
Or maybe that was the notion that everyone who plays dodge ball is a winner and has high self-esteem? I guess I knew lots of people, including boys, in Junior High who did not like to be forced into a pummeling by the tough kids in front of the rest of the school during lunchtime recess. Homeroom against homeroom. Winners and Losers. That’s how we did it where I was from: coercion and public pummeling. I guess that’s not too funny either.
Thanks for sticking through with all I had to say….
Katherine,
Sincerely appreciate your response, for numerous reasons. First off, I see your willingness to “be with” your own reactions, as you truly seek to understand. That really says a lot about you. While you’ve got pointed questions, I appreciate it’s not skewed by irrational anger and aggression. Thank you. I imagine there are other readers who also questioned aspects of the manifesto as truth. Each point in question deserves a real conversation, and exploration of the facts. You raising the questions, gives us the opportunity to address this for everyone.
BTW, I had almost ALL of the same questions you did. At first, it was difficult to face some of the blatant statistics and realities of human nature.
Please know, there is a reason each point was included in the manifesto.
When we prepared for submission to The Huffington Post (I actually had an invitation that welcomed all viewpoints), John organized a very thorough set of footnotes to support each statement within the Manifesto. We’re getting this uploaded now, so it can be accessed online. Having that as a reference, John can take questions from there. That’s the easiest way to get started in clarifying facts. We sincerely want to address each question you raised.
I agree, the tone of “A Manifesto for Conscious Women” is different that the Manifesto Arjuna and Gay wrote. While their tone is warm and heartfelt, there is a passive-aggressive attitude toward men who aren’t honoring women as they are. They chose to make all men living today responsible for what some men have done in the past. And, no doubt, many women reading this manifesto don’t appreciate the reciprocal request. Perhaps the idea of collective apologies is simply not a good idea.
Key elements in our Manifesto are direct responses to points in Arjuna and Gay’s piece. For example: From Manifesto for Conscious Men:
“I acknowledge that the religions of the past several thousand years have been mainly founded by and propagated by men.”
While it’s true, virtually all religious have been founded by and propagated by men, there is a reason for this. It’s not just because men were controlling, and wanted to call all the shots. Men, in general, are far superior at abstract thinking. And generally, much more interested in abstractions than women. Religions are created in abstraction. Hence, a natural by-product. Religions are systems of morality required for human beings to live together in communities. Human beings, by nature, need some understanding of why the world is the way it is. Religions provide this understanding. Men’s minds created what was needed for society. In contrast, women tend to be better at inclusion, nurturing and connection, and weaker at setting boundaries, rules and guidelines. NOTE: This doesn’t mean women don’t have abstract thinking capabilities or can’t effectively set boundaries and rules. Of course, we can do both. But, not in the same way that was needed all those years ago when civilization was forming.
As a woman, I appreciate Arjuna and Gay’s piece. Yet, some of the things they are acknowledging in women as strengths, also have their shadow. True, women are more connected to our feeling than men, and we’ve taught men a lot through the years as I’m sure will continue. Yet, that capacity to feel has the ability to convict innocent men of rapes they didn’t commit, to emotionally abuse, and to otherwise oppress men.
Again… it’s not that we’re speaking to the only truth. But, we’re here to balance out the story.
It would be a different piece altogether if we’d taken the same tone. Certainly, plenty of people won’t like what we’ve done. But, hopefully it expands far more awareness.
And, I want to acknowledge…. a few of the comments, including “Growing old and miserable with my cats watching Eat, Pray, Love” are indeed – mean-spirited. Collectively, it is a harsh consequence of choices women have made to divorce and reach for more independence, which is why it’s included. It paints the picture more graphically.
There is plenty more to address, but let’s continue after the footnotes are up.
Appreciating your curiosity and willingness to ask the questions.
Mary
I’ve noticed a Facebook page in my city called “Empower Women,” with hundreds of “likes” from community members. I wonder about the response to a “Empower Men,” page?
I think this is what you’re trying to do. Thanks for the flip side of gender issues.
Sorry, the one done by the male apologists was too sickening for me to watch the whole thing. But, I get the idea from your female apology. Thanks for doing this!
Thank you for this, it certainly caught my attention. I agree with many of the statements in the Manifesto to Men. At the same time, there were some things that resonated less. For example, it was new to me to attribute abstract thinking to men, as I have been an abstract thinker and am also a woman, though I might attribute it more easily to the ‘masculine’.
When I read Arjuna’s Manifesto, I found that there was an emphasis on the Feminine, moreso than on Women as an embodied expression of the Feminine. I felt in your post, there was a greater emphasis on Men moreso than Masculine expesssions. I am curious if this was intentional on your part, or perhaps it was not a necessary distinction. I appreciated the level of specificity in your post and the desire to be fact-based, which may have necessitated looking at concrete men-women relations rather then more abstract conceptions of masculine-feminine.
From my heart, I feel that looking at masculine and feminine dynamics as they appear in our inner dialogues is also a helpful way to understand our beliefs, internalized rules, and unmatured aspects. The more we can bring presence to the battle from within, the more easily we can manifest peace in the world. In our outer dialogues, I agree that loving ourselves and each other as men and women involves telling the truth about what happened as an early step towards compassion, forgiveness, reconciliation and freedom in relationship.
warmly, Carissa
Sitting in appreciation for the opportunity we all have to voice our opinions and views. Thank you for that.
I found the manifesto at times right on (particularly the female genital mutilation comparison to the wide spread practice of circumcision) however I’m left with a lot of heart ache at the overall harshness and divisiveness i feel in this piece. That saddens me. In my body, I feel toxic right now.
I think continuing to cycle in victimization frames, whether women oppressed by men or men being oppressed by women, is tragically off purpose right now when it’s time for us to collectively create a new destiny together.
I’m hosting a gender reconciliation circle in my home tomorrow for about 40 men and women. I’m sure it’s no accident to read your manifesto this evening.
Yes there is so much pain between us. It’s true. And I think we need to be very careful, very awake and conscious about whether we are contributing to more of it with our language or sowing the seeds for greater understanding and love.
In appreciation for the dialogue and for the good work you and John are both doing in the world,
Lisa
So appreciate your comments Lisa. All of them. And, I LOVE that you’re hosting a reconciliation circle tonight. No doubt, Divine timing at play. You do amazing work in the world, which is why I love you’re one of my guest speakers at the Inner Peace Immersion Retreat.
When I read the first draft of the manifesto, it stirred A LOT in me too. I understand your sadness. It’s a lot to be with it. I took my own visceral reactions and allowed that to lead to conversation, so I could ultimately understand each point with compassion. Without the harshness would we be o jolted enough to even acknowledge the other side of the story?
Our society has been so focused on all the ways women have been oppressed by men, but not the other way around. Were this just a “feel good” piece, I wonder if anyone would be sufficiently be moved to have a new conversation.
Definitely this piece could contribute to more divisiveness, if each reader chooses to affirm their own perspective without inquiry. And, I know there are a lot of conscious men and women in my community. It is my hope that each reader recognizes their own reactions, and seeks to further understand without making themselves wrong.
Thank you for contributing to the dialogue here.
Mary
I haven’t read the whole thing through, but did you apologize for killing 50,000,000 of our babies with abortion, causing us unfathomable pain and robbing us of our posterity
Thank you both for your well meant words. We must all, individually and without bias, work to understand and accept each other with our abilities and our flaws. Long may we knit our sweaters and split the wood in unity and accord.
Peace and Love
WOW! Thank you for that. There’s just too much there that hits the nail square on the head. To all that take offense at this manifesto, I also am offended. I’m offended by the fact that 40 years ago I joined an all inclusive movement that promised Equality for all, then quickly moved to victim-hood as a central theme, with me as an oppressor. I’m offended by feminist radicows that opened up legal avenues into business, education, law and government for women, then strengthened women’s gate-keeping of sex and family law. I’m not only offended, but really fuggin’ pissed off at the average AmeriKan princess that can sit there and let this happen.
Thank you very, very much for this manifesto. On behalf of the 3.5 billion men in our world, I forgive you. Let the healing begin…
Thank you all for your comments, whether you agree or disagree. I’d like to answer some of the points that have been raised. Rather than one long entry here, I’ll do it in several separate comments.
One of the reasons that Mary posted this Manifesto was to emphasize the role of dealing with what is as a path to inner peace. I think that for a lot of people in the personal growth and spiritual community, there is an aversion to hard truths. Mary is not one of those people who walks around cloaked in pretty lies.
When I talk about truth I’m not talking about the kind of truth your guru is talking about. It’s all fine to say that everything is One and the physical world is just an illusion, but the things you have to deal with in daily life are very real. If the traffic light is red and you don’t accept that truth your pain will be very real as you are incinerated in a gruesome traffic accident.
This is not about me being angry or men in general being resentful. The hard truth I am talking about is that the pendulum has swung so far against the side of men that the very foundations of civilization are now threatened. That is why this issue needs to be discussed in the context of political, social and economic issues. It can’t be discussed in the ethereal way that Arjuna did his Manifesto.
I love all the females posting about how angry this sounds. Reality is harsh ladies and yes there is some anger but it’s righteous anger over real injustice. It isn’t the railings and rantings of a man hating lesbian RadFem about some imagined patriarchal conspiracy.
John Cole said “This is not about me being angry or men in general being resentful. The hard truth I am talking about is that the pendulum has swung so far against the side of men that the very foundations of civilization are now threatened. That is why this issue needs to be discussed in the context of political, social and economic issues. It can’t be discussed in the ethereal way that Arjuna did his Manifesto.”
Ok, John, so help me out here cuz what you said in that statement, to me, translates to you believe that because Earth and humanity have balanced more toward an equal masculine-feminine balance of power after being masculine-dominated since the beginning of time, therefore women are to blame for the apparent fact that our planet and humanity is falling apart and the only solution to that is for men to get back into dominance? *scratching head*
This is certainly an excellent piece overall, and I’d like to thank John and Mary for posting it. Society has in recent years come to a crossroads where women have, out of a misguided leap for equality, pushed men asside in a bid not for equality, but for dominance. I’m afraid in the years to come, if balance does not return, we shall be in for some very difficult times.
I find it interesting that there have been complaints… no, complaints really isn’t the right word. To be fair, there have been opinions formed from observations that this piece is not a true mirror to it’s counterpart. I find this to be a puzzling stance, and to be honest I find this piece is not only a wonderful mirror to it’s counterpart, it plainly more honest as well, though requiring a bit more thinking to fully understand each statement, the reasoning behind them, and their meanings and implications.
If I were to be brutally honest with those opinions, I’d have to begin by explaining the different tones of the pieces. On the one hand, this piece was written by a man who is clearly more masculine by nature. Beyond that, this is, in a way, a rebuttle of sorts, and was written by a very different man, with a very different idea in mind for the piece’s presentation than his counterparts Arjuna and Gay did.
To explore that notion, look at the major differences in the style of the pieces. Arjuna and Gay’s Manifesto is written in a style that is immediately passive-aggressive towards men who disagree, or men who are less feminine than the writers themselves clearly believe that they should be. Over the course of the piece, it is made clear that they are mostly speaking of generalities without cause. Clearly it is based on the idea that masculine is bad, and feminine is good, going quite so far as to Deify women and feminine nature, just as an overwhelming example. (“I commit now to also honoring the spirituality of the divine feminine.”) At the same time, the intentionally devalue masculine nature and traits, such as the ability to push our physical limits in order that we may preveil in the protection for and providing for our families. Further, it makes blanket statements that often have no meaning, other than to make men feel inferior and women superior. The piece even uses items that are nearly outright lies, and apologzie for things that they shouldn’t. As a man, I refuse to apologize for something that I did not do. I can acknowledge that throughout history, there have been unpopular or even evil situations. There have been times when women and men might have equal, but different rights and responsibilities, or times when injustices may have been done against one gender or the other. What we really need to realize, though, is that atrocities have been commited by people against people, not by one gender against another (at least not in the ways outlined by Gay and Arjuna). I could go on, but I think you have a fair idea as to what that piece was really about, and the agenda it really served. It was flowery language, but being nearly poetry doesn’t make it true, or correct.
On the other hand, John and Mary’s piece was perhaps honest to a fault. One of the things that impressed me is that, for the most part, John put emphasis on apologies and just acknowledgements in the right place (though perhaps not always). Generally, he apologized only in cases where the issue was quite current and relevent, and only when you could make a generalized statement with some accuracy. The language was quite plain, in contrast to Arjuna and Gay’s piece. You could almost say that this piece was written by someone who is of a very masculine personality, while the other was very feminine. That would be an oversimplification, but in reading, you can clearly see John’s piece is more bluntly natured, sticking mostly to clearly defined issues with the occasional quip, while the other piece was often obscure both in it’s concepts, and it’s use of language to define those concepts.
The bottom line is that these pieces really do go hand in hand in many ways, and the personalities of the authors clearly seep into the writing a great deal. In many ways, John’s piece was not, as some have said, harsh. Instead, I would call it blunt, and possibly undiplomatic. To be honest, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The other major complaint (and this time it is certainly a complaint) I seem to see is that many items are hotly debated topics with no resolution, or clearly wrong factually, and instead just John’s opinion. I find it interesting that, by and large, those who desent from this article, while they do seem thoughtful, largely are taking a stance of “It’s not my opinion, so clearly he’s wrong, and just plain angry.” In the preface of this Manifesto’s post, it was clearly alleged that many of the issues are on the opposite side of what the mainstream media and agendas agree with. Currently, we have one overall agenda largely in control of: Media outlets, schools, policy, entertainment, networking, and “journalism”. I use the term journalism quite loosely, as for a great many years it has been clear that only one side of any given story will be given an ear, and a promotional one at that, not a fair one. To put things in perspective, consider that any organization (or individual for that matter) has an agenda that they want to push, for any number of reasons, including profit, power, or conversion. As probably the two biggest collaborative organizations in the nation, if not the world, with a mostly shared viewpoint, government and media are the last sources any respected scholar would look, and even if they did, they would inspect not only the data with extreme care, but also the intentions behind the data, the whys, and the implications that go beyond the study. These are generally not included with the study, or with the media presentation, so you usually get, “New survey says X% of people think Y is real and a bad thing!” or “X number of people received Y amount of aid last year, nearly double the year before! Clearly we should give more!” Or even meaningless, one-sided statistics that have little basis in fact, like “A study shows X% of women abused up from last year!”
People are generally going to point things out in such a way that helps their cause, not hurts it. Devaluing men and punishing them has nearly become a state religion, one of the very premises of this article, so be prepared to actually question your beliefs and do research on it, as opposed to just flat out disagreeing because you don’t agree, or deciding to side with one idea against thinking and studying because you happened to catch a headline, or see a TV show.
All that said, this really was a great article, especially if you look at it as a response, and not an actual grand apology. While there are some areas that do need citing from an academic standpoint (I actually agree with said points, but citing would certainly help clarify to some where the points were coming from), the true beauty of this article is the areas where it points out the many things women have taken for granted about men, things they often believe they merely deserve just because they are women, while at the same time exposing a horrible double standard when it comes to out genders. With actual examination and background, this kind of article could actually help a great many young men and women, who were raised in a time when this institutionalized double standard came about, or was already in place as a matter of day to day life. Thank you for writing this, John and Mary, for it was most definitely a good read.
Kieran, thank you for your thoughtful reply. You clearly understand the intention of the Manifesto and added so many excellent points. And, so true… this piece was written as a rebuttal.
For you, and so many who are interested in John’s sources, we’ve just included a link at the very bottom of our Manifesto, below our bios. You’ll see the Manifesto again, this time with ENDNOTES (look for those tiny numbers next to key points), and can scroll below to see exactly what John was referencing. This is, but a small reference library supporting the points in the Manifesto.
As John likes to encourage when someone is doing research, look for what the data is consistently pointing to. No doubt, anyone can skew information for there own agenda.
Appreciate you all for adding to this spirited conversation…one that certainly isn’t happening in mainstream, but sure ought to be. We welcome your thoughts.
I just can’t read the huge blocks of text without paragraph breaks. It cracks me up when people try to sound educated and intelligent and then they can’t even use the Enter key.
I read a bit and will have to put it into Word and put the para breaks in myself to read the rest. So far (from this one and several others written by men) it sounds to me like there are many men who feel disempowered and ‘small’. I can relate, as I’m sure most women over the age of 40 can, because we’ve been the ones out there trying to make it different. Perhaps the pendulum has swung further than men are comfortable with, but as long as there is not true equality regardless of gender, s o m e o n e will be feeling put down or ignored. Maybe that’s the point of these dialogues.
On the other hand, in an ideal world where gender was not even considered, there might still be a preponderance of males or females in any given situation or profession, simply by right of their interests, skills or talents. How to judge then?
This took me a while to read (thoughtfully, not glossing over stuff) and I must say I am humbled by what was written. I cannot praise you both enough for the courage to step forward and bring the “ugly truth” before us to look at and contemplate.
THANK YOU!
Thank you for breaking up the text of Kieran’s post.
Having read it, I find not much to disagree with, given that it is a male’s perspective, and as such says, in more subtle language, the same things that John’s does.
Going back to the manifesto … I find when I hear that ‘women are to blame for rape because of their clothing choices and behavior which entice men’ I despair of us ever finding a common ground and open communication while there are two genders until each takes responsibility for itself, no matter what ‘temptations’ there are. For a man to say that he has no control over his behavior or his penis because of what a woman is wearing or how she is acting is not only denying his own responsibility and putting it onto her, but is contributing to the anger and denigration this manifesto is complaining about! Are men so truly powerless that they cannot control themselves? That has been the argument used for centuries of abuse of females, and when I see it coming up again in these supposedly enlightened times, it brings up anger for me, and I find it so very very sad.
We (humans) are both masculine and feminine in one body, with one usually having dominance because of our physical gender, but not always. We are not really ‘at war’ with the other gender, we are in truth at war with parts of ourselves.
And Kieran .. it’s “dissent” not “desent” (“I find it interesting that, by and large, those who desent from this article …”)
I do agree with you about journalism and the media in general, which by the way is predominantly owned and managed by men and the masculine perpsective. I don’t think there’s been a true journalist since Edward R. Murrow.
For the most part, this is total BS. Trots out just about every crackpot, right-wing anti-feminist cliche in the book. Someone has seriously drank the Kool Aid here. Don’t defend your husband. This screed is vile.
Hunt, thank you for your comment. Can you tell us where there are errors in either fact or logic. Glad to address them.
Forgive me, Salty. Usually I place a double space to break up text, especially when I’m using such a large amount, but I only had a half hour before work, and that without sleep from the previous day. When I’d realized my mistake in formatting, I considered fixing it, but decided that two back-to-back posts that said the same thing, one with spaces, one without, would have been more annoying. Thank you for fixing that for me Mary (or John, if it was you). And thank you for pointing out that I used desent, not dissent Salty. I was tired enough that I did not catch that, nor did I have time for a spell check, and I probably would have completely missed it if you’d not pointed it out. How embarrassing, eh?
@Salty
” I find when I hear that ‘women are to blame for rape because of their clothing choices and behavior which entice men’ I despair of us ever finding a common ground…”
Allow me an analogy. Imagine a person in a suit made of cash cruising in the “hood” Would that person go unmolested? In street talk, in the media and entertainment, isn’t “money maker” used to refer to the sex parts of the female anatomy?
Understand this. The greatest majority of men would not rape a woman, nor steal from the person in a money suit. Those that do are already predisposed to those actions. Seeing a woman scantily dressed DOES drive those animals to cross the threshold, just as seeing someone flash a wad of cash will tempt thieves.
Does either victim share responsibility for their fate? In my opinion, yes. But I also consider other variations. Women who are not dressed inappropriately get raped, just as anyone can be robbed. The question is, why tempt someone? How many rapes take place in broad daylight on a public beach? I don’t have the answer, but I can guess, zero.
I don’t think anyone believes that a woman’s apparel is a get out of jail free card for rapists. I get the impression you believe that society believes the opposite. Consider that rape shield laws in all 50 states prevent any discussion of a woman’s apparel at trial.
We constantly hear feminists howl that there are not enough convictions in rape cases, yet with rape shield laws in hand, I imagine a prosecutor could convict that proverbial ham sandwich.
I’d appreciate a response to my question from John.
This article feels largely influenced by a man, your husband perhaps? As I heard a lot of male anger here. The tone is the victim apologizing to the perpetrator. I DO believe much of our behavior flows from women’s shattered identities and men’s inflated identities. Women who manipulate to regain the power they have given away, and men who feel entitled to have what they want. Clearly YOU have never felt the pain of rape, and have not noticed the penis has become an instrument of war. The fire women I have know are quite capable of bringing you AND me out of a burning building and put their lives on the line daily.
I DO agree then women should not dress as provocatively as they do….and wonder how much of that IS encouraged by men who SAY thats what they like. Indeed circumcision is barbaric but there is an entire religious institution of Judaism that would fight any movement to stop it. Another patriarchal religion to boot.
I DO believe there are son’s and daughter’s of patriarchy and son’s and daughter’s of evolution. The first continue to support and defend patriarchal systems and the later work to
examine and change patriarchal patterns and behaviors embedded in the culture and repress both men and women. THIS is where we need to come together, that is the work ahead of us. Meanwhile I do hope you consider reading more of women’s history to bring your own thinking into balance.
AFTER THOUGHT: As someone all ready pointed out……we are all of us, both male and female within. Left and Right sides of the brain have been labeled accordingly.
I BELIEVE the real conversation here is about becoming whole.
When men embrace their own feminine, and NOT project it out there on women, and women do the same with their male side I believe then and only then can we find true partnership and birth a new species of human’s. This does not imply that men will become women and vs versa….it means we can utilize our full capacity honoring our dominant sides and embracing it all.
Conscious people do not take responsibility for what others think, do, or feel.
Let me start with a couple bullet items I have problems with, and when I have more time we can go through the whole list. It would be better to number the items for reference. I’d like to see if John can defend his points, since I’m guessing he was principal author.
In the third bullet item, how has the struggle for equality and “sense of self” eroded the relationship between man and woman, moreover, how has it eroded civilization in general? This is a bald assertion, and the onus is on you to support it. Countries that advance equality of women are far an away more socially healthy than those that oppress women, so the proposition is absurd on its face. How has equality undermined civilization?
In the fourth bullet item, how can this be a general complaint against womankind? Has the situation described ever happened? Sure, but that type of deception is not a general phenomenon.
Anyway I’m out of time at the moment.
This Manifesto feels like anger & dis-empowerment projected on to the feminine aspect of the Self.
I have to recognize this as being mine because I brought it into my awareness. I own it & choose to release it now.
I think number four reflects the mistrust of the feminine aspect by the masculine counterpart. Can the feminine be trusted? Is it deceptive by nature? According to mythology, it was the feminine aspect that seduced the masculine with fruit from the tree of knowledge, cutting both off from their creator.
Mistrust of the feminine has been ingrained in us since birth.
Codependency (or codependence, co-narcissism or inverted narcissism) is a tendency to behave in overly passive or excessively caretaking ways that negatively impact one’s relationships and quality of life. It also often involves putting one’s needs at a lower priority than others while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others.[1] Codependency can occur in any type of relationship, including in families, at work, in friendships, and also in romantic, peer or community relationships.[1] Codependency may also be characterized by denial, low self-esteem, excessive compliance, and/or control patterns.[1]
The manifesto reeks of the victim mentality.
In this comment I’d like to address the comments from readers regarding rape.
Nowhere in the Manifesto do we say anything about women being responsible for rape. The part of the Manifesto that talked about provocative dress in the workplace has to do with an entirely different subject – the workplace.
What the Manifesto does talk about is that rape statistics are lies. Rape is far, far more rare than the the feminist-dominated media wants us to know. Girls and women lying about rape in order to seek vengeance or to cover up some other activity is commonplace to the point of cliche. Every police agency knows that. Rape victims are given anonymity while those accused, most of who are innocent, have their lives ruined, even if they are later proven innocent. The criminal justice system invites bad behavior on the part of women. This injustice could be put to an end immediately if both the victim and the accuser were shielded and, if the victim is found to have lied, she goes to prison for the full term the rapist would have served – with no parole.
Many of the reader comments say something to the effect of “there is no clear distinction between men and women. We both have masculine and feminine energy to varying degrees.” All fine but this does not change the fact that in the real world there are men and there are women – no hybrids except for a very tiny fraction of the population. Men get treated one way and women get treated another, regardless of their “masculine and feminine energy.” All this “squid ink” does is cloud the issue.
Show up in court, and you’ll be treated as a man or a woman. Unfortunately, the men who have integrated more of their feminine are often more at a disadvantage in the court systems.
Could you define provocative dress in the workplace?
And how does it “disordering what was once a well functioning and highly productive male hierarchy”?
Does this have to do with the ideology that men think about sex every seven seconds?
Hunt,
I’m not saying that giving women some degree of equality hurts civilization. Prosperous countries are not prosperous because they give equality to women. They are prosperous because they give a high degree of individual liberty to their people in general. Equality for women just results from that. Don’t confuse cause and effect.
What I am saying that when the pendulum swings too far in favor of women, certain primal behaviors are triggered in people that are destructive to civilization.
It is human nature that men monopolize as many beautiful women as their status (power, wealth, fame) will allow. The natural behavior of men is for a few alpha males to dominate the tribe, drive out or enslave the beta males, and monopolize the females. The natural behavior of women is to mate with the highest status man her looks can get her. Her instinct drives her to be in the harem of a high status man rather than have a low status man to herself. Because of this all of us alive are the product of almost all the women that ever lived but only a small fraction of all the men that ever lived. The reproductive function of the male is to be a genetic filter; in order to mate he must achieve some degree of status. This results in many otherwise productive men being driven out of the tribe.
The problem is that civilization requires that all men diligently contribute to the welfare of the collective. In order to motivate lower status males to provide for their families and for the tribe, the natural behavior of humans must be controlled through a mechanism we call civilization. This requires that the ability of alpha males to monopolize women be limited and it requires that wives and children be the legal property of the husband. Men will not work to provide for women and children that are not theirs – that they do not “own.” In swinging the equity pendulum too far in favor of women we have effectively undone these controls on destructive human behavior.
Why can’t we just simply substitute women for men as the providers? Because women are incapable of producing for society o the same extent men are. This does not mean that women are not capable of making important contributions. But the reality is that without most of society’s men actively engaged in productive activity, civilization cannot be sustained.Look around you. Just about everything you see was invented or built by men.
Why is it necessary for wives and children to be the legal property of husbands? Because it is human nature that people will not sacrifice for things that can be arbitrarily and capriciously taken away from them. This is precisely what the family court system (which works overwhelmingly in favor of women) does. There is a reason why in most societies wives and children take the husbands’ family name. It is not “sexism.” It is his claim to his property. The average working Joe never knows when he will come home to a house that has had the locks changed and a retraining order preventing him from seeing his own children – all at the wife’s request. And not because he was unfaithful or abusive – simply because he did not emotionally fulfill her. This is the kind of legal theft that is causing men to drop out of society in droves. Now I ask you, how do we maintain civilization when good productive men decide that they have nothing worth working for and that all they have worked for can be stolen at any time?
If one looks into the inner world of the Council Flats of any large UK city or the squalid public housing projects of any US inner city, one will see firsthand how quickly humans can revert to their pre-civilizational state.
I am having a really hard time swallowing this Manifesto because it is separatist. It absolutely misses the point of the original Manifesto that was about the integration of the Masculine and Feminine Archetypal energies, not about women as victims of men. And I’m not saying that I subscribe to that other Manifesto, I’m just saying that it was offered in a vastly different light. I only read it after reading yours.
This Manifesto is really, really unenlightened and low vibration and quite frankly, I’m shocked that you are subscribing to it or defending it in any way, Mary. Now I admit I’m being judgmental with what I’m about to say, but I think perhaps your judgment might be clouded by your love for your husband and perhaps some unconscious fear of disagreeing with his apparent controlling and manipulative ways, as evidenced by the way he phrased so many of the points and his subsequent responses to the comments here that are still very obviously full of anger and defensiveness.
John’s Manifesto is absolutely no different than if you sat there and wrote similar Manifestos each for Slaves and Slave Owners, for Nazis and Jews, for White Supremists and Ethnic people, for Criminals and Victims, etc., etc. and by doing so you would be suggesting that all people currently alive should feel guilty about and be responsible for the past.
Like others have said, we all consist of Masculine and Feminine energies, and our physical gender in this lifetime does not mean that our soul is that gender. The human experience is about integrating and balancing the masculine and feminine while being incarnated as a specific gender. It’s an experience that we signed up for before we came in because the game used to be that we wanted the human experience of duality.
However, the raising of the consciousness of the planet is about transcending duality and coming into Unity consciousness. And this Manifesto is 100% old-energy duality and it makes me feel sad that you seem to feel like you have to defend it, Mary, because it goes against everything that you have been promoting the past 10-15 years. What do you think Tony and Sage would say about this? What about our good friend Gary King? Or Jerry and Esther Hicks? What about Oprah? Deepak Chopra? Neale Donald Walsch? James Redfield? Eckhart Tolle? Ghandi? Do you really believe they would read this Manifesto and respond with “That’s awesome and the cold hard truth that needs to be told. Let’s all band together with this mentality and change the world!”
And it makes me feel even more sad to see John responding with continued judgmental labels like suggesting that the concept that we all have masculine and feminine energies is “New Age Bullshit”. All this Manifesto does is show how utterly unconscious John is and where he obviously has major emotional issues that need work. Might I suggest he start with attending Tony Robbins’ Date With Destiny and Life Mastery? I bet he’s refused to go because he feels he’s perfect and doesn’t need to improve his life or know and understand himself better.
And by the way, John, I was molested for years as a really small child by several members of my family/extended family and family friends, I was date-raped at 19 because I didn’t understand that my body was mine after that experience as a small child, and in my mid-30s I was given the date rape drug and date-raped again. And I never told anybody any of that or reported it to authorities. So take that and shove it up your statistics!
And John just posted as I was submitting this and to what you just posted I am throwing up in my mouth a little. Dude, you’ve got issues. Deep, deep issues!!
Oh yeah, and what do both your parents think of this, John and Mary? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that John didn’t grow up with a mother. Either she died or left him when he was really young, or perhaps she was a drunk who was never there emotionally and was abusive.
Here’s a beginning, for the youngsters. Now if we ‘older folks’ already feeling abused by each other can just get over ourselves and our perceived ‘abuse’ we can really make this world a loving and wonderful place to be!
“NO ‘HIM’ OR ‘HER’; PRESCHOOL FIGHTS GENDER BIAS
Sunday, June 26, 2011
STOCKHOLM —
At the “Egalia” preschool, staff avoid using words like “him” or “her” and address the 33 kids as “friends” rather than girls and boys.
From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don’t fall into gender stereotypes.
“Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing,” says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. “Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be.”
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden’s efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
To even things out, many preschools have hired “gender pedagogues” to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.
Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.
“Different gender roles aren’t problematic as long as they are equally valued,” says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls “gender madness” in Sweden.
Those bent on shattering gender roles “say there’s a hierarchy where everything that boys do is given higher value, but I wonder who decides that it has higher value,” she says. “Why is there higher value in playing with cars?”
At Egalia _ the title connotes “equality” _ boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, waving plastic utensils and pretending to cook. One boy hides inside the toy stove, his head popping out through a hole.
Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.
Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase, she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless _ until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.
Nearly all the children’s books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no “Snow White,” “Cinderella” or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.
Rajalin, 52, says the staff also try to help the children discover new ideas when they play.
“A concrete example could be when they’re playing ‘house’ and the role of the mom already is taken and they start to squabble,” she says. “Then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on.”
Egalia’s methods are controversial; some say they amount to mind control. Rajalin says the staff have received threats from racists apparently upset about the preschool’s use of black dolls.
But she says that there’s a long waiting list for admission to Egalia, and that only one couple has pulled a child out of the school.
Jukka Korpi, 44, says he and his wife chose Egalia “to give our children all the possibilities based on who they are and not on their gender.”
Sweden has promoted women’s rights for decades, and more recently was a pioneer among European countries in allowing gay and lesbian couples to legalize their partnerships and adopt children.
Gender studies permeate academic life in Sweden. Bergkvist noted on her blog that the state-funded Swedish Science Council had granted $80,000 for a postdoctoral fellowship aimed at analyzing “the trumpet as a symbol of gender.”
Jay Belsky, a child psychologist at the University of California, Davis, said he’s not aware of any other school like Egalia, and he questioned whether it was the right way to go.
“The kind of things that boys like to do _ run around and turn sticks into swords _ will soon be disapproved of,” he said. “So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness.”
Egalia is unusual even for Sweden. Staff try to shed masculine and feminine references from their speech, including the pronouns him or her _ “han” or “hon” in Swedish. Instead, they’ve have adopted the genderless “hen,” a word that doesn’t exist in Swedish but is used in some feminist and gay circles.
“We use the word “Hen” for example when a doctor, police, electrician or plumber or such is coming to the kindergarten,” Rajalin says. “We don’t know if it’s a he or a she so we just say ‘Hen is coming around 2 p.m.’ Then the children can imagine both a man or a woman. This widens their view.”
Egalia doesn’t deny the biological differences between boys and girls _ the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct.
What matters is that children understand that their biological differences “don’t mean boys and girls have different interests and abilities,” Rajalin says. “This is about democracy. About human equality.”
____
http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/ap/june/269522/No-him-or-her;-preschool-fights-gender-bias
Salty,
I’m pulling your post because this Manifesto for Conscious Women isn’t about eliminating gender bias, so much as acknowledging that it exists in today’s reality, and has for years. (It’s also not acceptable to repost entire articles here. Relevant links are fine.)
For those who would like to read about how Sweden is trying to fight gender bias, here’s the link.
http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/ap/june/269522/No-him-or-her;-preschool-fights-gender-bias
One quote from this article is very concerning, “The kind of things that boys like to do, run around and turn sticks into swords, will soon be disapproved of.” he said, “So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness.”
Our society has already done A LOT to emasculate maleness. Not sure why we’d want to add fuel to the already burning fire.
I think that your end note Mary sums it all up. We have to allow men to speak their minds and have their opinions. John, thanks for allowing us the space to see your side. It’s about time we stand and accept each other. Someone should put the two articles side by side and label it unity!
Shanda
Gee, why doesn’t it surprise me that the Huffington Post would have considered this ‘too edgy’? Yeah… I guess the truth often is, well, edgy.
The sad part of this is that there will actually never be one woman who ever comes along in my lifetime to actually SAY something like this to a guy like me. The sadder part is, at 48, and far too many years of dealing with far too many self entitled princesses with either borderline, narcissistic, or just your basic, garden variety, ‘daddy issues’, if a woman actually DID utter such words, that actually brought a tear to my eye, my first and now gut reaction would be….”What do you want NOW?”…….
Yep….thanks ladies. It’s been real. But you’re too late in the ‘honoring’. Now, please have fun with your cats.
“It is not necessary to deny another’s reality in order to affirm my own.”
And yet, denial of what is really happening in the world, as witnessed by the reactions to nay sayers in here, is exactly why Mary and John are SPOT on in their manifesto.
Of course… don’t believe me. You can always tell it to the judge. And if some think this is an isolated issue regarding the inequalities of men in this little misandrist society we now live in, I, and a whole lot of other men can start “enlightening” the very naysayers in here with facts, instead of their long winded conjectures. Have a very inner peaceful day….
Thank you Mary and John. I’m quite sure you’ll be hearing from some others very soon, including female psychologists who are hip to the game, in support of what should have been said a long time ago.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Houston-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-for-child-that-DNA-proves-isnt-his-124472429.html
Internalized oppression
In sociology and psychology, internalized oppression is the manner in which an oppressed group comes to use against itself the methods of the oppressor. For example, sometimes members of marginalized groups hold an oppressive view toward their own group, or start to believe in negative stereotypes of themselves.
I have pondered on this for some time, especially Mary’s involvement & why the woman on the blog are agreeing…I think it may be internalized oppression..
Internalized oppression:
In sociology and psychology, internalized oppression is the manner in which an oppressed group comes to use against itself the methods of the oppressor. For example, sometimes members of marginalized groups hold an oppressive view toward their own group, or start to believe in negative stereotypes of themselves.
I wish that I could feel a sense of wanting to work things out between the genders from this manifesto, but I don’t. I feel a very strong ‘wanting to go back to the good old days of male dominance’ and I just do not resonate with that.
Thank you for letting me express myself here, even though you removed what I found a very interesting effort at trying to defuse the gender squabbling and stereotyping. I guess we each read and see things through our own filters, and perhaps this is a starting point for the dialogue.
I’d just like to quote from Richard Bach’s “Illusions” in closing:
“Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they’re yours.”
John, can you reconcile where you say societies that afford individual liberty for all their citizens, which naturally includes women, are inherently more prosperpus, with the statement that women and children should be property of men? how does one have both individual liberty and the status of chattel? women are “free” to be owned?
i’ve heard this argument of “men are just better at everything” before,and the use of circular logic to justify it. you say men created everything, and yet are loathe to have to compete with women. You want women to be the property of men, which they were for many years, and then say “see, men created everything.” Um, women weren’t allowed to even get an education for most of human history, or to work, let alone *gasp* to work outside the home. so is it at all fair to say women somehow inherently can’t compete or contribute? i think what terrifies guys like you is the knowing that the more gains women make, the clearer it will become that women actually can make the same quantity and quality of contributions to society. the assumed supremacy of men will be revealed for the fraud that it is. that fraudulent assumption is only held in place by force, threat of violence, and systemic oppression, not fair and accurate representation.
another paradox, if women are so feeble and incapable of doing anything with that tiny wittle brain of theirs, how did they manage to turn the whole world upside down and against the much better intellectually equipped but now alienated man? how are women now running everything from the court systems to the boardroom, and the alpha males were unable to prevent it? and women are running everything, wouldn’t they fair better? wouldn’t they make the same money as men for the same work, instead the 75 to 80% now? wouldn’t there be more women in government, where women remain the minority? doesn’t make sense.
this manifesto is male ego feeling threatened and having a tantrum, imagining itself being treated the way it has always treated women. waaaah!
Salty,
This Manifesto isn’t so much about “trying to work things out between genders,” but rather it is about acknowledging the impact women have had on our brothers, fathers, husbands, ex-husbands, sons and men. Unfortunately, there are so many ways women have directly or indirectly harmed, oppressed or otherwise emasculated men.
Focusing on different topic of eliminating gender differences only distracts us from “being with” the facts in this manifesto. When we stop long enough to recognize the atrocities occurring to men today, we can first begin to have a sense of compassion, then we might get curious. Are these statements in the manifesto true? What is the data behind them? Why was each statement included? What motivations lead us to where we are today? Laws? Freedoms? As women were given more rights and laws began favoring women, what incentives and constraints were created? What unintended consequences have arisen? What trade-offs have occurred?
Not saying it’s all bad, or shouldn’t have happened. Heck, I’m a woman who has had her own business for nearly 20 years. Trust me, I like the freedoms. And, I recognize their are consequences. I’m open to looking closely at these. It doesn’t mean I have to send myself on a guilt trip. We’re just investigating a broader perspective. Isn’t that what oneness is about? Including it all… the good, the bad and the ugly. It’s all a part of the human experience of today.
Besides, we can’t eliminate gender segregation today. We’ll see how Sweden fairs. Personally don’t think that’s the answer, or at all practical in today’s society. And don’t think the masses want that. Heck, part of what creates passion in romance IS the polarity between genders. (But, that’s yet another side tangent).
There is a reason men and women compete separately in the Olympics. There is a reason only men are called into drafts. There is a reason public restrooms designate “men” and “women.” This is current reality. This is “what is.” We don’t need to change it to find inner peace, simply to acknowledge this is how it is.
I invite you to “be with” each of the statements in the manifesto. Investigate for yourself. What is true? Is the logic faulty? John and I didn’t make up the statistics. And, the endnotes provide an extensive lesson in awareness. We’re merely pointing to some of the uglier truths present in our society today. The one’s mainstream media avoids like the plague.
We don’t have to like the facts. But, consciousness is about being aware of “what is.”
Actually, Mary, I started reading your footnotes searching for your backed-up facts that you both keep professing, and couldn’t get past the block text with no paragraphs. I guess I have the same affliction as Salty. That aside, I did weed my way through the first several because they were relatively short and I found it rather amusing that the first two are not citations nor statistics, they are merely definitions.
That, in itself, led me to have no desire to continue to try to “understand” by reading further, as it merely proved that this Manifesto is a bunch of hooey written by a very unenlightened, prejudiced mysoginist who is cemented in victim consciousness. Sorry to say. And that makes me feel really sad because he seems like a real standup guy by outward appearances, and I have the utmost respect for you, Mary, and what you represent. My heart breaks for you that you are sucked into this and that he is hiding behind your proverbial skirt. It is not lost on us that you are the one doing all the promoting and responding!!
And I find it amusing if not insightful that you have systematically avoided responding to posts like mine. You seem to be only responding to the posts that you feel you can either praise or else argue with a rote response of “show us where our facts aren’t true.”
And without getting on a soapbox about the whole women’s healthcare BS you guys “cited”, just as one example, I ask you what about Lance Armstrong and Livestrong? And I remind you that Heart Disease was the “Disease du Jour” in the 90s. Breast Cancer happens to be the current one in the current decade/era. That doesn’t mean Heart Disease has been ignored. The studies were done and the conclusions made a long time ago so why would it be necessary to waste time and money on it now?
Dear “I Used to Work with Mary years ago,”
I welcome all comments, thank you for yours. Sincerely. Not avoiding your post, but in all fairness, it invited more than quickie response. And, as much as I’d love to respond to posts 24/7, I’ve got to balance that with the rest of my life. I’m sure you understand. You opened up a lot of “loops” to address, and honestly, I’m happy to address them all. Not sure it’ll all be tonight. I was planning to reply to you first thing in the morning.
Let’s see how far we get tonight.
As I’ve coached hundreds of people through the years, and even with the few details you shared, I’m not sure who I’m writing to because of your alias handle. Also, your tone is rather harsh. And, I appreciate your anonymity.
First, my heart goes out to you for enduring repeated molestation and rape. You know, first hand, how real it is. I know you’re just one of many who never reported the transgressions, and it’s something you’ve had to deal with. I, too, have had date-rape experiences that were unreported. No matter what the statistics are, one deliberate rape is too many. It happens more frequently than many men realize. I’m certain no one here believes there is anything good about rape in any form.
That being said, we can’t simply dismiss that there are innocent men who have been convicted at the hands of women. That’s equally sad for a man to be unjustly incarcerated and his reputation ruined. The manifesto is simply acknowledging that ugly reality. And, in doing so, we’re not minimizing your tragedy in the process. You get that, right?
Secondly, let’s talk about Ad-homenin attacks. Since a lot of people don’t know this term, or how frequently they abuse it, I’ve included the definition below. This is a lesson many readers ought to take note of, especially if you value being conscious human beings. I point this out, with all due respect.
If we’re going to have a truly “conscious” conversation here… this is essential to understand. There are a lot of blogs that blacklist people when this is their main form of argument. Making Ad-hominem attacks is actually one of the most “unconscious” ways we can engage with information and people in the real world. You’re not the only one who has made them here, but you’ve definitely demonstrated it the most times in a single post. If you re-read your post, I’m sure you’ll recognize them.
Here’s a dose of reality… John may be controlling, manipulative, unconscious, filled with emotional issues… but focusing on those qualities, true or not, is irrelevant to the Manifesto for Conscious Women. Does John’s character change the facts or logic? Actually, it doesn’t. John is just the messenger here. It could be Mother Teresa, Tony Robbins, Julia Roberts or Hitler who wrote the Manifesto. Their character wouldn’t change the facts or logic. The Manifesto is independent of John’s character. Attacking him doesn’t nullify the points. (And please, challenge the facts or logic…we welcome it!)
We may get seduced into believing something more easily from a leader we respect, but that is how unconscious people stay unconscious. Truly conscious people learn how to recognize reality for what it is, and what is isn’t. They are willing to challenge their beliefs, their thinking, their feelings, their impulsive instincts so they may rise above it to a greater truth and more encompassing perspective.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (and I’m not saying you’re necessarily one of them) aren’t willing to take the time to separate out the emotional, instinctive reaction and question why they believe what they believe. Or listen to additional facts, figures and summaries. Instead, they attack the messenger and dismiss the message altogether. I don’t believe there is anyone in my community, including you, who would call that “conscious.” Do you? Again, I say all this with love because I know you value consciousness.
Tomorrow, I’m going to write a post about why “A Manifesto for Conscious Women” is on my Everyday Inner Peace blog… and why it is very relevant, and very conscious. The short version is I’m the one who encouraged John to write the first draft. When I read it, we talked about each point. I learned a lot. And, trust me, I’m not a pushover. I asked a lot of questions. I reacted. And, I sincerely want to understand the facts, not just what media feeds us. The more we talked, the more inspired I was to help get this out into the world in a palatable way. Many will debate, we didn’t quite make it palatable enough. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, I support the blunt nature of the manifesto. And, I get…especially as a woman, it is a lot to stomach. All along the way, I’ve initiated its publicness. Eyes wide open. No unconscious fear. If anything, it was John who was more reluctant to put this out, mostly because he’s in the middle of two start-up businesses and this is a diversion.
In regards to your last post, I’m sorry to hear you were so easily discouraged to continue diving into the endnotes. Blaming our formatting or expecting a different type of reference is a pretty weak reason to give up on trying to “understand.” The fact that your desire waned doesn’t prove or disprove anything about our manifesto, except that you gave up. That’s the sad part. If you have questions beyond the endnotes, please ask. This isn’t all inclusive.
I see you started to raise a question about women’s healthcare and heart disease. So what about Lance Armstrong and Livestrong? It’s not clear what fact you’re pointing to in the manifesto that is inaccurate or faulty.
Quite a harsh statement to say studies have been done for heart disease, so we should stop wasting time and money on it now. And, if that’s what you’re saying, I’d love to hear more about why you believe that. I invite you to make a truly conscious argument.
Much more to respond too, but it is late.
John Cole said “The natural behavior of women is to mate with the highest status man her looks can get her. Her instinct drives her to be in the harem of a high status man rather than have a low status man to herself. Because of this all of us alive are the product of almost all the women that ever lived but only a small fraction of all the men that ever lived.”
I’m still just shaking my head in disbelief over this statement. It’s got me speechless. I’m sure after I sleep on it, I’ll come up with a suitable inappropriate retort.
The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
John,
So now you’re saying that for civilization to thrive men must “own” the members of their family. I think you’re digging yourself in deeper. Maybe stop reading Roissy (yeah, I know). And his degree in Anthropology is from where…?
I partly agree with your point about equality cause and effect, but it doesn’t really matter. Whether female equal rights is cause or effect, we know it is probably a necessary component of successful society.
But let’s continue down the Manifesto…
I honor you for providing for women before you provide for yourself. I honor you for the endless hours you’ve toiled in labs, so that I may live a long and healthy life. I apologize for demanding that all the developed countries of the world spend far more on cures for women’s diseases, while practically ignoring diseases that strike and kill men at higher rates.
This you would have to show me studies to support. The entire field of women’s health was spurred by the fact that for decades medicine neglected female health issues. Perhaps you’re confusing remediation for a pro-woman bias?
I honor you for remaining steadfast through my often irrational and emotional storms.
Yet another bigoted statement. Perhaps you’re referring to PMS that strikes certain menstrual women? You realize that women pilot planes, captain ships, etc?
I honor you for being a gentleman. I apologize for demanding that men act like gentlemen while exempting myself from acting like a lady. I apologize for poisoning the relationship between men and women with my anger. I apologize for keeping up the pretense of being sugar and spice and everything nice while I am more often the one to initiate physical violence in dating and relationships.
Where does any of this apply in general. Show me the dating stats. Are you saying that domestic abuse is predominantly female instigated?
I honor you for giving me the freedom to make my own choices about what I do with my body. I take responsibility for our epidemic of out of wedlock births. I apologize for socializing the costs of my undisciplined sons and emotionally damaged daughters, while fulfilling my own desires – and minimizing the importance of the role of the father.
This is the first place you seem to think that men granted rights to women without women sharing the struggle to fight for them. Wrongo. As others have said, read something about the woman’s movement.
Regarding out of wedlock births, remember, it always takes two to tango.
I apologize for gladly taking a seat in the lifeboat while thousands of men went to an icewater grave that April night. I apologize for forgetting all the other times throughout history that men have sacrificed their lives for women.
Point taken, but “gladly” is a perverse distortion. “Forgetting?” why would you say that?
Enough for now.
Hunt,
JUST as I was off to bed. Had to respond to this portion.
Yet another bigoted statement. Perhaps you’re referring to PMS that strikes certain menstrual women? You realize that women pilot planes, captain ships, etc?
Just a quick reminder that I contributed to the Manifesto 🙂 We can’t pin this one on John. This wasn’t in the first draft. I added it, because I’ve noticed that quite often my “emotional storms” don’t have to do with John. And having coached hundreds of women around relationships, I’m not the only one who loses perspective at times. Hormones may be at play. Or I may simply be disconnected from my own sense of power for whatever reason. Author David Deida speaks to women’s “emotional storms” and offers men coaching in supporting women through it. Grateful that John read one of his books shortly after we met.
And, certainly this statement doesn’t mean women aren’t equally capable of focusing and remaining calm and centered under the most challenging of circumstances.
I’ll let John reply to your other statements tomorrow. He’ll appreciate your challenging him.
Doug, the western world has vilified women since its very inception. please. Hello, Eve?
as far as forcibly transferring resources from men to women, first of all, LOL!, secondly, how does it feel? women for the most part couldn’t own property in the US until the 19th or twentieth century, and many women all over the world still can’t.
The UN reported that women do 2/3 of the world’s work and own 10% of the world’s property, and earn only 5% of the world’s income. Re-read that sentence, then stop whining. Additionally, most of the “free labor” done in the world is done by women.
I see a few more posts while I was writing mine. I haven’t read them yet.
Interesting perspective, Doug, and one which suggests that you have either experienced or witnessed those situations you speak of, as have we all. The problem with generalizing is that we lump everyone into the same category as the few, and that is a patently false conclusion.
I believe what you are seeing, which you describe as “where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated”, is simply the growth of humanity to bring itself to balance. The imbalance of the past was to honor and respect the mind, money, and power and ignore personal freedom, personal sovereignty and personal respect, at least as it applied to women. The masculine exemplified this for the eons when they have held the power, by virtue of their being stronger physically, politically and economically and able to impose their will. Now we are moving more into the heart rather than the mind. We are tired of warfare and losing our children to it. We are tired of “the bottom line” being the moral compass of this nation and this world. We are just plain tired of it always being about ego or power or material goods. There IS enough for all if we shared, enough food, enough ‘stuff’, enough love. IF we shared it.
We have had the extremes, and they still go on today. The pendulum is still swinging. Can we agree that women have done wrong to men and men have done wrong to women through the ages and let go of our resentments? Can we grow up enough to realize that neither the masculine nor the feminine would exist without the other? There has to be a reason for that.
Perhaps sincere apologies are in order, but I do not get any sense of that from this Manifesto.
Read, the link…
“Doug on June 27, 201112:41 am
Read, the link, xxx-breath. You too, xxx-breath.”
That response alone is reason for me NOT to read the link. My reply to you was not disrespectful in any way, yours was insulting to everyone. And you wonder why women might look at someone other than you? Pfffft! Self explanatory my dear.
Doug… let’s keep the name calling with references to body parts… off the blog. The invitation here is to discuss without insults.
Salty… ignore the name-calling. Don’t let that get in the way of your path…
doug, your insults befit you. are you about 12 years old?
again, those articles use the same self-serving circular logic. now assignment of blame for the taming of alpha males and distortion of this fantasy “natural order” is “culture” or “civilization.” well, who is responsible for that culture and civilization? you and john believe that men create civilization, so…why the discrepancy?
the link says there are no laws to protect men against domestic battery. yes, there are. the same laws that protect women. most battered men don’t report the abuse. they should. maybe DV against men is under reported because the men themselves under report it. ever think of that?
and passages like this? “The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.”
make it hard to take this stuff seriously.
but again, bottom line is, if men are so smart, how’d they lose “control” of women? did it ever occur to you that not all men want to regress back to this mantopia you dream of? a lot of men are secure with themselves and have no problem whatsoever sharing the responsibilities and burdens of life with the women in their lives. young men even more so. they don’t want to be the bread winner so much as they want to be available to their children.
the secret you don’t want to hear is that a lot of men want what a lot of women want, and it’s a lot different than this immature and laughable manifesto you propose. that’s why things are changing, and changing rapidly.
it’s telling if the only relationship you can imagine with a woman is where you have control and she can’t leave or have basic equal rights. that doesn’t sound like a secure man. and that’s the crux of it. you guys are terrified that women don’t want/need you.
Mary, Have you ever read what Tolle has to day about the collective female pain body? It might answer a lot of your questions about PMS or irrational emotions. You certainly seem to have a man in your life that would trigger it, too. That can be a blessing if it ends up giving you clarity.
“Mary Allen on June 27, 20111:29 am
Doug… let’s keep the name calling with references to body parts… off the blog. The invitation here is to discuss without insults.
Salty… ignore the name-calling. Don’t let that get in the way of your path…”
It doesn’t get in my way at all, Mary Allen. It just shows me that some people (male or female) can transcend their personal victimization and be open, and others can’t (yet). I am interested to note that you felt it necessary to change Doug’s post, and my copy of it, and wonder why you feel it necessary to protect Doug from himself, and from the responses of others on this board.I understand that you do not want this conversation devolving into a fracas, but in truth I do not feel you were honoring Him, as much as ‘protecting’ him from being responsible for his actions.Ahh .. another thing women should apologize for, because they’ve been doing it for eons!
I am secure in knowing who I am, what I am capable of, and what I can offer the world and its people.
Hi John..I wanna here more about what you have to say in response to all the comments thus far..I wanna walk in your shoes man..tell us how it is..please!
Julia, What was your question?
Thank you.
Some comments have taken issue with my comment about wives and children being the “property” of husbands.
To clarify, what I’m saying is that society can can function perfectly fine with very few women working outside the home but it cannot function without the active, and willing workforce participation of the majority of its men. Willing participation requires motivation. Men are motivated to care for families only if those families are “theirs,” which means men have to have some legal claim to their wives and children as was the case in the 19th century. If this sounds sexist then so be it. It is against human nature to expect people to work and sacrifice for things they have no legal claim to.
The question has been raised in several comments about why men are so needed to build and maintain civilization. The claim has been made that the reason women did not do so before is that they were denied education and opportunity. If women were given such opportunities they could replace men in any function. The fact that some exceptional women do perform these functions does not mean that women as a group can perform them.
Here we come to one of the most difficult truths to deal with. Men and women are not equal in their abilities when it comes to building and maintaining civilization. These activities require a type of motivation and intellect possessed predominately by men.
It is settled knowledge that men dominate at the upper end of the range of human intelligence. Let’s not get into a debate about this – do the research yourself. At the level required to make significant contributions in such areas as law, engineering and medicine (IQ: 125-130), men outnumber women two to one. At the level required to make very significant contributions to the arts and sciences (IQ: >145) men outnumber women over five to one. The ratio increases exponentially so that at the very highest levels of human intellectual capability, the field is all male. This “glass ceiling” is a statistical one. The same math that applies to widgets on an assembly line applies to human intelligence. Given two populations, the one with the slightly higher mean and the slightly higher variance will dominate at the upper tail of the distribution.
This has nothing to do with education or opportunity. There is no policy solution to this problem. There are no female physicists, composers, chess grand masters, etc of the very highest rank not because of discrimination but because of nature.
The question has been raised in comments to the effect of “if men are so smart, how did they lose control of women.”
Because women tend to cluster in the middle in most abilities and behaviors. Nature seems to have designed men to be much more variable. In addition to the differences in cognition that I discussed in my last comment, men and women exhibit significant differences in temperament. One of these is that women are more conscientious. This characteristic emerges in childhood. We see it routinely in the way girls do their homework and turn in the neatly written assignments on time. This is why they make better students. Its also why women vote more. it’s what we are supposed to do.
For these reasons, after women were given the right to vote, they became the dominant voting block. The system is still controlled by men. It always will be. But the men who control the system are now highly incentivized to curry favor with the dominant voting block – women. This is how women indirectly have been able to change the system in their favor.
The losers are beta males. What is really at work here is alpha males (politicians) doing the bidding of women to restrict the access of beta males to most of the emoluments of life – just as it was in pre-civilized times.
To add to what John said about “women as property,” we’re already seeing LOTS of young men who are skipping college and very unmotivated to join the workforce in any meaningful way. Talk to young women these days, they are finding it harder than ever to find a 20 something guy who is at least as motivated as they are. I don’t think this is a “conscious” choice of young men, mostly an instinctual one. And one that could have a more serious impact to our society long-term.
They’ve also seen lots of fathers/men get shafted in divorces, giving up 80-90% of their networth, only to go on to struggle. Men are more willing to live sparsely if they have to. So why work hard if they feel it’s not worth it?
We might say it shouldn’t be the responsibility of women to motivate our men. Shouldn’t men be able to find enough focus and drive for their own well-being? Some do. But, reality tells us a different story. It’s essential to look at human nature, as it is… first. We can focus on how we want it to be, but it’s delusional to think human tendencies are going to shift just because the world could be more harmonious if they did.
The shifts favoring women in the family court system, and the prevalence of no-fault divorce (largely instigated by women) are a couple contributors to this dynamic above.
Personally, I cringe at John’s “property” statement, though I understand what he means. I may be married to John, but he doesn’t treat me like a piece of property. Far from it. Instead of getting hung up on the “property” part, can we look at the impact on men’s motivation and its consequences objectivity? Can you see how the point is valid? Are there other elements to consider? Or do we want to put our head in the sand and avoid the reality of human nature all together.
Salty, In no way was I protecting Doug. I want to be clear that on my turf, lewd name-calling doesn’t become epidemic. Doug’s comment was childish, disrespectful and rude. Plain as that. “Don’t want that here,” says Mama Bear.
I said “Don’t let that get in the way of your path…” because you said you wouldn’t read Doug’s article because of his name calling. In my opinion, that’s interfering with your path. Doug may be inconsiderate, but that doesn’t dictate how useful or irrelevant his article is.
Many commenters have said that this post feels a certain way, i.e., separatist, angry, victimizing, etc.
What difference does it make how it feels? Does how you feel in any way change the validity of my facts or the logic of my argument? No. Facts and logic stand independently of feelings.
Many of the comments, rather than addressing my facts or logic, attack me or Mary personally. If I go out in the field and do research, gather data, analyze that data using well established statistical techniques, and make the data and methods available for peer review, is the validity of my data or methods changed in any way if I am Hitler or Mother Theresa? No. Facts and logic stand independently of the character of the messenger.
If I say publicly that I wish to use this data as justification for committing genocide against some group, does my motivation in any way change the validity of my data or methods of analysis? No. Facts and logic stand independently of their intended uses.
Folks, this is Thinking 101. Start thinking and lets drop the logical fallacies.
I used to work with Mary years ago on June 26, 20112:48 pm
Whoever wrote this, I want to say HOORAY!!! Apparently you know this pair and could speak personally as the rest of us cannot. But you are articulate, clear and come from a much higher perspective here.
What I am interested in, is why all of us are not redirecting our energy from towards one another to deal with the male perpetuated issues of rape, human trafficking, women’s unequal pay, the off balance of gender where the 16% of congress that are women are representing 51% of the population? It is THE system of patriarchy that has failed us, ALL of humanity. Yes, John men have invented most things, because women were denied their voices, ideas and yes solutions for SO many years in the Western culture. Some female authors and inventors HAD to use male identities to bring their work to the public. GET A BOOK JOHN!! Your old recycled thinking really does not work in healing the planet.
1. Divorce makes men – and particularly fathers – significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman’s income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.
The research was carried out by Professor Stephen Jenkins, a director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research and chair of the Council of the International Association for Research on Income and Wealth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research
2. Abrams, R., & Greaney, J. (1989). Report of the gender bias study of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
A 1989 study by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that in cases involving custody and visitation litigation, “The interests of fathers are given more weight than the interests of mothers and children.” (pp. 62-63).
3.Chesler, P. (1991, 1986). Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
Phyllis Chesler interviewed 60 mothers involved in a custody dispute and found that fathers who contest custody are more likely than their wives to win (p. 65). In 82% of the disputed custody cases fathers achieved sole custody despite the fact that only 13% had been involved in child care activities prior to divorce (p. 79 tbl. 5). Moreover, 59% of fathers who won custody litigation had abused their wives, and 50% of fathers who obtained custody through private negotiations had abused their wives (p. 80 tbl. 6).
4. It is not uncommon for defence lawyers (those defending the accused) to insinuate that a woman led the rapist to believe she consented. For example, they might exploit myths like;
A woman’s provocative appearance or behaviour was an invitation for consensual sexual intercourse.
A woman provoked a rape because she was drunk or because she was wearing a low cut dress, or accepted a lift in a car.
Alternatively they might argue that a woman’s word could not be trusted, by calling on myths such as:
Women lie about rape for their own vengeful or fraudulent ends;
Most reports of rape are false;
Women mean “yes” when they say “no”;
Women enjoy being raped and;
Women are prone to sexual fantasies or;
Men can’t be blamed for losing control in a confusion of sexual signals. http://www.brissc.org.au/resources/for/for_7.html
5. According to a recent study by the American Prosecutors Research Institute, false rape allegations account for two to eight percent of all reported rapes. This low figure may shock many readers who have heard claims that over 40 percent of rape reports are false.
http://www.awolau.org/2010/04/05/myth-busters-false-rape-reports/
•I honor your commitment to the institution of marriage, even when it means sacrificing. I apologize for eroding this key foundation of civilization. I apologize for listening to all those shrill lesbian feminists years ago that told me that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, that gender is a social construct, and that a women can have the sexual freedom of a man with no consequences. I apologize for pushing for no-fault divorce laws and using those laws to create an epidemic of divorce theft. I apologize for whining that men will not commit when I have made marriage toxic for men. I vow not to complain, as I grow old and miserable alone with my cats watching Eat, Pray, Love.
Abused Women Less Likely To Be Married or In Long-Term Relationships
Prevention of Abuse Would Help Women, Foster Stable, Long-Term Relationships
Women who experienced physical or sexual abuse in childhood or as adults are less likely to be married or in a stable long-term relationship than are other women, according to a large study of low-income women funded by the federal government.
“The physical or sexual abuse of women and children is never acceptable,” said Duane Alexander, M.D., Director of the NICHD. “Beyond that, these findings indicate that preventing the abuse of women and girls can help to build strong families.”
Specifically, women who were abused as adults tended to avoid romantic relationships with men, whereas women who were abused as children tended to have a series of short-term relationships.
The study appears in the most recent American Sociological Review.
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/abused_women.cfm
31% of separated mothers receive payment from the father of their children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research
John Said: “rather than addressing my facts or logic”
I think that’s just it. Nothing about what you say is a “fact”..it your opinion alone by merit of your own self-fulfilling prophecy and research, that has guided you “to your own truth” and made it a fact for your self. There are many that see things differently..does that make their view untrue and unfactual..no..again, each journey is a self-fulfilling one..and you have so eloquently proven this..both yourself and Mary..
Blessings and Love to the both of you..
Minerva
Minerva…and all,
There is a big difference between fact and opinion. I will say that getting to the most objective reality and indisputable facts can sometimes be challenging. Ultimately, there is an objective truth. As someone said earlier, each come with their own agenda. I do know that what John puts the most weight on is studies that share exactly how they gathered their data, followed sound testing practices, are peer reviewed, and generally have more than one study to back up a claim. He’s an engineer, inventor and scientist. Doesn’t mean he’s got all the answers, but I suspect there are only a few others who’ve chimed in on this post who have researched to the extent he has. He reads conservative and liberal blogs. He’s collected articles for well over a decade.
And, he’s also open to learning, being challenged in his thinking, logic and facts. I sincerely appreciate those who are doing so, without resorting to the most prevalent logical fallacies or indulging in simply an emotional argument. One path is truly conscious, the other not conscious.
At the same time, John’s also interested in all things spiritual, meditation, reading and studying sacred texts. He’s far from perfect, but he’s one of the most reasonable men I know. Those of you who have met him know this to be true.
Marilyn,
With all due respect to “I used to work with Mary years ago,” her comments may have been clearly articulated, but largely served as a diversion from the real conversation. Attacking our character, asking what others think about our piece, judging the idea of collective apologies (I agree, people mostly don’t like them! Remember, Arjuna & Gay started this…), talking about feminine/masculine energies vs. real ways men and women are treated differently, and pointing to the purpose of consciousness — while all interesting discussion points — it’s important to recognize this: Shifting attention to a side issue avoids “being with” what is presented in the Manifesto.
In the same way, you are redirecting attention to the ways that men have oppressed women, as a way of avoiding the conversation present in the Manifesto for Conscious Women. A lot of women tend to do this.
Definitely, there are real issues where men are responsible for horrific maladies against women. No one disagrees with that. And, Arjuna and Gay’s piece acknowledged these, as many others do daily. Not saying these topics don’t deserve attention. They absolutely do. (Though we’ve addressed things like “why women aren’t inventors of more things” — see notes above)
But, THIS Manifesto is about how women have caused harm to men. And, in reality, the statements above acknowledge this bluntly. It’s in our face women.
Iit is the “Conscious Women” who can acknowledge what has and is continuing to happen in the world. Awareness is consciousness.
Consciousness
A Conscious Woman can recognize her light qualities as well as her dark qualities. Whatever we don’t acknowledge within us, ultimately controls us. To the extent I can’t be with my own weakness, I’ll react to the weakness in others. To the extent I can’t be with my own power, I’ll react to those in power. To the extent I can’t be with my own anger, I’ll react to those expressing anger. To the extent I can’t be with facts around how women have harmed men, I’ll react when others point facts out.
Maybe I’ll redirect the conversation. Maybe I’ll blame you instead. Maybe I’ll simply dismiss you. I’ll find a way to avoid what I cannot own inside of myself.
This isn’t my dogma… this is simply what Debbie Ford and Carl Jung refer to as our “Shadow.” Embracing our shadow is not easy work, but it is essential for anyone on a path of consciousness.
Whether you’re familiar with “shadow” or not, how is it useful to deny the ugly realities that are oppressing men? Is it about punishing them for a couple centuries as pay back? Or, as conscious men and women, we simply become awake to what is happening… and from there, work together to find a way that serves each of us as individuals and as a society.
Re-read what John wrote in one of the recent comments about who is really running this country. Maybe men in political office, but they are serving their voters — women.
Let me add… my intention here, more than anything else is to foster greater awareness and understanding. Some people have been so focused on how women have been oppressed by men, we haven’t stopped long enough to see what consequences have arisen. The pendulum is still swinging… and not in favor of men.
. I apologize for keeping up the pretense of being sugar and spice and everything nice while I am more often the one to initiate physical violence in dating and relationships.
According to Southern Connecticut State University: “In 95% of family violence cases the victims are women beaten by male partners. In 1% of the cases the reverse is true. There are an estimated 28 million battered women in the U.S., more than half of all married women in the country. In the U.S., one woman is beaten by her husband or partner every 9 seconds. Battering is the single major cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the U.S.; more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. 70% of the assault victims seen in the emergency room of Boston City Hospital are women who have been attacked in their own homes. 3 out of 5 women in the U.S. will be battered in their lifetime
JM — Appreciate you sharing specific studies that point to sharply contrasting results. Most of these study sure seems to be more in alignment with what most people believe to be true. I too, am interested in hearing how John will respond to this set of data. Stay tuned.
Answer a question if you will…Why, Mary Allen, is that you find it necessary to defend and talk for John. Surely he has a voice of his own, minus the research. What’s imperative to understand,is that both of you are living out your self-fulfilling prophecy..and it IS your own. You’re living it thru each other. Can you both see that? Masculine and feminine fully conscious, needs no research, no need to back up the hearts view, and absolutely no need to defend anything. This says to me, that there remains an underlying unconsciousness, that drives this “need” for you both to “put it out there”…it being your view, and more importantly, you’re seeing your view as a possible absolute given the lengthy explanations and providing ‘research’ to back it up…no-thing is absolute..not even research..and historical facts are by no means any gauge to examine the ‘reality” of consciousness in the now. Consciousness simply is…it’s living thru the heart where there is no separation and everything, and i mean everything,is in perfect order. THIS is truth…Things always change..and bless your hearts for being the beautiful impetus for this much needed change..it’s most certainly food for thought for many, and for many it’s also providing an avenue to see things as they truly are..or rather how truth is evolving..
Respectfully and with love,
Minerva
John wrote: “To clarify, what I’m saying is that society can can function perfectly fine with very few women working outside the home but it cannot function without the active, and willing workforce participation of the majority of its men. Willing participation requires motivation. Men are motivated to care for families only if those families are “theirs,” which means men have to have some legal claim to their wives and children as was the case in the 19th century. If this sounds sexist then so be it. It is against human nature to expect people to work and sacrifice for things they have no legal claim to.”
Unless those people are women?
Yes, it’s sexist. But more importantly, it’s not sustainable. An imbalance to male or female supremacy is not sustainable. Just because “that’s the way it was” doesn’t mean that’s the optimum society. Clearly, it isn’t. One thing you never acknowledge, John, is the humanity of women. For you to be able to write the words that men should legally own women and children because that works for you, makes it very clear you don’t see women as quite human.
Additionally, family structure is changing. The relationships of organization is changing. As women claim their sovereignty as full human beings both in relationships and law, society is shifting to accommodate that. I can understand how if one was comfortable with 19th century living that would make you upset. But like you said regaring your sexist statement, so be it.
John, this unconscious manifesto is hardly the result of fact or logic, but of unconscious ego trying to hold on to control while mass consciousness shifts away from the destructive limitations of said egoic living.
You are correct that your writing is unfeeling and seemingly of the mind. That’s why so many can’t relate. Not everyone is that closed off. Many people reading this have grown and expanded to step outside of clinging to mind only analysis. Many people can read the same statistics and studies and come up with vastly different conclusions. This manifesto is the product of egoic mind fearing change of the status quo that has served its self-serving nature.
Having said that, I do have compassion for how you feel. I can see that you are feeling alienated and perhaps even disempowered. While you are trying to say this manifesto is pure logic and factual reasoning, no it isn’t. It’s all about how you FEEL. It’s not logic and reason that motivates anyone to take pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) it’s feelings and emotions. If you truly believe anything at all about the “conscious man” manifesto, it might help if you considered the possibility that you have completely alienated yourself from your feminine feeling aspects. What you are objecting to occurring in the social shifts you lament, are women embracing their masculine essences, and breaking free.
There’s nothing to be afraid of. It may look a little off kilter as the adjustment takes place, but it would go much more smoothly for everyone individually and collectively if we didn’t resist this natural urge for change, growth, and integration, but rather embraced and supported it. Embracing and supporting, true masculine qualities. Mature masculine qualities.
“If I say publicly that I wish to use this data as justification for committing genocide against some group, does my motivation in any way change the validity of my data or methods of analysis? No. Facts and logic stand independently of their intended uses.”
you facts and logic have been refuted many times.
Mary wrote:”Personally, I cringe at John’s “property” statement, though I understand what he means. I may be married to John, but he doesn’t treat me like a piece of property. Far from it. Instead of getting hung up on the “property” part, can we look at the impact on men’s motivation and its consequences objectivity? Can you see how the point is valid? Are there other elements to consider? Or do we want to put our head in the sand and avoid the reality of human nature all together.”
My head is hardly in the sand. People are fundamentally disagreeing with your opinion of human nature, that’s all.
Have we stopped evolving? Are we to be satisfied with the theories of alpha ape men as our template?
JM, Minerva, and Marilyn Nyborg have trotted out their feminist factoids about domestic abuse, rape accusations, divorce’s impact on women’s financial status, pay discrimination,and other topics. There are many books and studies that have been published over the past 25 years that debunk or challenge their claims. Gelles, Straus,and Steinmetz on DV, Sanford Braver and Stephen Baskerville on divorce’s negative impact on fathers, Philip Cook on abused men, Warren Farrell on the so-called pay gap and a host of other men’s and father’s issues including false rape accusations. There are many books and articles debunking victim feminist assumptions and attitudes that one could assemble and that represent conclusions from methodologically sound research, as well as metaanalyses of studies and surveys done both in the US and in other countries. It is apparent from what I’ve seen from their comments that JM, Minerva, et al are wedded to a religion of victimhood and male-resentment. They don’t seem to hold women responsible for much, not for domestic abuse against other women in lesbian relationships, or against children (especially small sons) or against male partners. They blame the patriarchy for everything and ignore the power and influence of the matriarchy. They seem to see only female vulnerability and powerlessness while ignoring male sacrifice and vulnerability. Thanks to Mary Allen and John for their work and their commitment to fairness and compassion. Remember, women’s strength lies in their facade of weakness; men’s weakness lies in their facade of strength.
Mary Allen on June 27, 201110:11 am said:
“I said “Don’t let that get in the way of your path…” because you said you wouldn’t read Doug’s article because of his name calling. In my opinion, that’s interfering with your path. Doug may be inconsiderate, but that doesn’t dictate how useful or irrelevant his article is.”
I did read it, at least as much of it as I needed to to get the gist of it. It was the same old drivel that has been spouted forever by men feeling their control slipping away.
The length of it, the ‘sources’, the sheer volume of it, felt the same to me as John’s Manifesto, and reminded me of an old time-honored advertising/marketing saying:
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
What has come back to me again and again is this question. Why is a MAN writing a Manifesto for Conscious Women? Is really does read like a personal statement of preference for the way HE wants women to be, and all the ills he sees them having committed. I know you said you wrote some of it, but really?!
Chris… thank you for summing it up so succinctly. It is my sincere wish that some of the naysayers actually take in what you’re saying — and take it a few steps further and challenge their own calloused viewpoints — Instead of instinctually reacting and blaming.
Unfortunately, “One of the strongest driving forces in human nature is to remain consistent with the identity one has for themselves.” – Tony Robbins
Evolving IS all about challenging our automatic, conditioned and instinctual identities… and more consciously considering our choices.
What would the world be like without male resentment and victimhood? Who is willing to explore that question?
As Chris Heard just commented, I invite everyone to simply read the huge volumes of high quality research that has been done by the researchers Chris just identified.
Case in point: the wage gap myth.
This has been debunked so many times yet it just keeps getting parroted by people who simply don’t want to accept the truth. The data shows that in all large US cities women under 30 make about 8% MORE than men their age. Once purely voluntary factors such as choice of profession and working hours are taken into account the overall wage gap shrinks to zero. Women don’t value work the same way men do.
Furthermore, the wage gap myth defies common sense. Payroll is, for most companies, their single largest fixed operating expense. If pay discrimination were really going on all it would take is one company to break ranks with the other discriminating companies to gain a huge competitive advantage. Then others would have to quickly follow or go out of business. Yet we see companies continue to pay men more. Why? It can only be explained by the fact that men must contribute, on average, more value to the company.
“The question has been raised in several comments about why men are so needed to build and maintain civilization. The claim has been made that the reason women did not do so before is that they were denied education and opportunity. If women were given such opportunities they could replace men in any function. The fact that some exceptional women do perform these functions does not mean that women as a group can perform them.
Here we come to one of the most difficult truths to deal with. Men and women are not equal in their abilities when it comes to building and maintaining civilization. These activities require a type of motivation and intellect possessed predominately by men.
It is settled knowledge that men dominate at the upper end of the range of human intelligence. Let’s not get into a debate about this – do the research yourself. At the level required to make significant contributions in such areas as law, engineering and medicine (IQ: 125-130), men outnumber women two to one. At the level required to make very significant contributions to the arts and sciences (IQ: >145) men outnumber women over five to one. The ratio increases exponentially so that at the very highest levels of human intellectual capability, the field is all male. This “glass ceiling” is a statistical one. The same math that applies to widgets on an assembly line applies to human intelligence. Given two populations, the one with the slightly higher mean and the slightly higher variance will dominate at the upper tail of the distribution.
This has nothing to do with education or opportunity. There is no policy solution to this problem. There are no female physicists, composers, chess grand masters, etc of the very highest rank not because of discrimination but because of nature.”
Can you cite the sources on that IQ stuff? Also, an IQ test is not the end all be all measurement of intellect. It measures how well you take a test, mostly. Also, what education you could afford.
For you not to acknowledge the social and legal restrictions that have kept women from “competing” in these intellectual pursuits on the same scale or degree as men is you not facing facts. Women weren’t allowed to attend MIT, for example, until the 1950’s, but heeeey, if they haven’t achieved the same exact things men have, well, that proves an innate inferiority. No, it doesn’t.
Also, to be sure, there are sexists like you all over academia happily impeding women’s careers. The award of resources for research, or even scholarships, is still very much conducted by a good ol’ boys network. Your every comment proves it, actually.
Thinking that an entire group of people is innately unable to achieve at the same level as the dominant privileged group without there first being some catch up time in acquiring the same background skills and education required and enjoyed for millenia by the dominant group, is simply not logical.
John wrote: “Furthermore, the wage gap myth defies common sense. Payroll is, for most companies, their single largest fixed operating expense. If pay discrimination were really going on all it would take is one company to break ranks with the other discriminating companies to gain a huge competitive advantage. Then others would have to quickly follow or go out of business. Yet we see companies continue to pay men more. Why? It can only be explained by the fact that men must contribute, on average, more value to the company.”
You just contradicted yourself if you on one hand say the wage gap is a myth, but then in this paragraph say companies consistently pay men more.
You state as fact that men generally contribute more value, on average, than women, and base that conclusion on the fact that they get paid more. There’s that self-serving circular logic. It couldn’t be due to any other factors, like bias? Not in all cases, to be sure, but at least some.
Do you think sexism exists in the workplace, or society? Or do you not believe in sexism as a concept because, well, women really are second class citizens and should be treated as subordinates in all areas of life?
To everyone that has taken the time to comment on this blog post – thank you. I understand that some of you were offended, possibly even hurt by this blog post.
Some of you have asked why I’m not posting more comments and answering more of your questions. I’m trying. But I am currently running two startup companies. I just don’t have time.
I have spent years researching these subjects. I invite everyone to simply let go of the lies you were told in you women’s studies classes and seek the truth. If you really care about truth then please just spend a few hours a week over the next few months doing the research. Find articles supporting both sides of the issue. Then weigh the preponderance of the evidence. Don’t latch onto one citation that supports your viewpoint. I guarantee that if you do that you will see that every point I made in the Manifesto is correct.
“Unfortunately, “One of the strongest driving forces in human nature is to remain consistent with the identity one has for themselves.” – Tony Robbins”
Exactly Mary. Many women and men are evolving their identities, not trying to revert back to an apelike tribal group dynamic that served the few at the top.
“I have spent years researching these subjects. I invite everyone to simply let go of the lies you were told in you women’s studies classes and seek the truth. If you really care about truth then please just spend a few hours a week over the next few months doing the research. Find articles supporting both sides of the issue. Then weigh the preponderance of the evidence. Don’t latch onto one citation that supports your viewpoint. I guarantee that if you do that you will see that every point I made in the Manifesto is correct.”
No, they aren’t, actually. If you’re going to continue to argue for women to get back in the kitchen, you are not to be taken seriously. You’re being patronizing and dismissive of an entire group of people, but want consideration for yourself and your viewpoints. Not logical. Invalid. Irrational. Does not compute.
*Sigh* John, you are blinded by your mind. You don’t get it that there are those of us who don’t give a hoot about your flipping statistics because you presented yourself (i.e, the Manifesto) in the vernacular of bigotry, which was very contrary to the “other” Manifesto and the spirit in which it was offered. You (and apparently Mary as evidenced by her recent responses) somehow feel justified in presenting what you deem “harsh reality” or “unpretty truths” in the form of overall ad-hominem attacks against women (Thanks for the term, Mary! I learned something new!) and you continue to suggest that any opinion that is not one of concurrence must be a diversion or denial of the issues you presented.
Bottom line is there is no point “discussing” this with either of you as you are not willing to have a discussion, you only want to manipulate everyone’s responses to suit your agenda.
I was going to respond to the comments Mary made toward and about me today, but after seeing the responses tonight, I’m out. It’s not worth my energy.
Good luck to you!!
Mint E. Fresh
OK, we’ll walk through this S L O W L Y. The wage gap myth is based on the idea that because men make more on average, companies are discriminating against women. The claim that men make on average 20% more than women is true. If you take all the women in the economy and simply take their average income, and do the same for men, you will indeed see that men are paid more on average.
BUT THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE
The issue is WHY they are paid more on average. When you bother to dig a little deeper you will see that the reason men make more on average is that they CHOOSE to go into professions that require more difficult abstract thinking, or to be out in the cold and rain, or to be subjected to danger. Women on average don’t CHOOSE to do these things.
Also women on average CHOOSE to work shorter, more flexible hours, to travel less and to take long career breaks for family reasons. They simply have different priorities.
When you take these voluntary factors into account guess what happens – the wage gap goes to zero. Zip, Nada. This proves that there is no discrimination going on.
The fact that young women actually making more than their male counterparts proves that there is no discrimination. Women this age do not CHOOSE to take time off and take long career breaks like their older counterparts do. They have not yet entered the so called “leaky pipeline.” But sooner or later they will.
Why is this so friggin difficult for some of you to understand?
Mary wrote:
“What would the world be like without male resentment and victimhood? Who is willing to explore that question?”
i think part of their reaction is the fear of consequence for what they’ve done that was harmful to woman. “what if women ‘take over’ and treat us like we treated them?”
women aren’t going to take over, and don’t want to hurt men. men are not being victimized by women, but for those men and women who cling to stagnant consciousness, the shift to balance could be uncomfortable. you’re hurting yourselves by resisting the inevitable. that’s where the discomfort comes from.
i said previously i understand and have compassion for men like John who feel these changes and aren’t comfortable with them. it really is a way of life ending, and that can be bittersweet for some. but change is the only constant in this existence, so why would this be any different?
John on June 27, 201110:47 pm wrote:
Mint E. Fresh
“OK, we’ll walk through this S L O W L Y.”
and ended with this:
“Why is this so friggin difficult for some of you to understand?”
That is exactly the kind of patronizing and arrogant tone that has created a lot of the ‘abuses’ men feel they have been subjected to. And it is reason enough for me to leave this discussion, as there is no point in either of us trying to convert the other.
Remember this John. A mind is like a parachute. It’s no darned use unless it’s OPEN. Yours is at present firmly closed and stuck in your own perspective, as I’m sure you will accuse me of also. I applaud anyone who is willing to look at their own beliefs and see the fallacy of them when they find it. I have no time for those who are not willing to be honest with themselves.
hey, thanks for the patronizing tone again, John. you’re a real charmer. Oh, but hey, is that frustration an emotion I detect? See, silly? You’re highly emotional and kid yourself otherwise.
Even in your citation for the manifesto, your source wrote:
“The narrowing of the gender wage gap approximately one percentage point a year since 1980 is
particularly significant, since during the 1980s and ’90s the overall wage level rose little and the
wage inequality between skilled and unskilled workers grew. Without enhanced skills, women’s
wages likely would have fallen further behind men’s. However, market pressures have helped to
generate corrective mechanisms, and as the costs of denying employment to women mounted,
prejudices were set aside.”
At least your source acknowledges existing prejudice in her conclusions.
Also interesting to me, we’ll likely see the overall wage gap close, too, as women continue to start their own businesses so they can have that flexibility they so much desire. And men, unfortunately, may continue to have heart attacks so they can have the rigid work hierarchy they seem to covet.
Mary wrote:
“Evolving IS all about challenging our automatic, conditioned and instinctual identities… and more consciously considering our choices. ”
So what about this manifesto has evolved since 1850?
Your husband stated very clearly that he believes women are simply incapable of intellect past a certain point, lol. Do you agree with that? Do you agree you are inferior to him in every way?
I have no idea how you can spend so much time wallowing in such black psychological nihilism and consider it to be a “life skill”. This pretty much nails it – http://wp.me/p1hBgT-w6
Mary wrote:
“John may be controlling, manipulative, unconscious, filled with emotional issues… but focusing on those qualities, true or not, is irrelevant to the Manifesto for Conscious Women. Does John’s character change the facts or logic?”
If John is all those things, it would certainly influence his interpretation or the way he filters information and sees the world (which is his or anyone’s right), and that would absolutely color the “manifesto.” It is not irrelevant, but entirely relevant, the beliefs, qualities and character of any author. In critical analysis studies, the first thing you are taught is to consider the source.
If you don’t detect the tone of seething resentment this was written in, then I can’t say I trust your perceptiveness a whole lot.
I’m going to continue my march down the Manifesto. Regarding female hysterical emotional storms and Mary Allen’s reply: Part of what is so annoying about John’s opus is that it isn’t the result of original research but rather the wholesale lifting of amateur opinion from other websites. If you want to know exactly where he got his thing about men remaining a strong ballast against female emotion, read Roissy’s Citizen Renegade (if you dare). I believe it will be rather eye-opening. THAT is the type of source John is using to garner opinion, not anything like original research.
I honor you for remaining steadfast through my often irrational and emotional storms.
See above.
I apologize for making an issue out of the rare practice of female genital mutilation, while remaining silent regarding the common practice of circumcision.
There are in fact women who have made an issue out of male circumcision, mainly because they researched the matter for their sons and found it an abominable, unnecessary and damaging practice, then became active about it. AND, needless to say, there are man men how are quite pro-circumcision.
I honor you for giving me a voice in shaping society through the right to vote. I apologize for bringing my instincts for security over freedom into politics and eroding America’s freedom by pushing socialist policies that are bankrupting this country.
First, you’re making the same error you will make numerous times. Women fought for suffrage; it wasn’t “given” to them. You next point is an out of place political opinion. You’re obviously extremely right-wing. The New Deal was drafted primarily by men to provide a social safety net. Men supported it, men voted for it. Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs are backed by men as well as women.
I apologize for contributing to a suffocating nanny state, complete with helmet laws and prohibitions on dodge ball, where everyone is a winner and has high self-esteem.
Great, but out of place. Nobody cares if you’re very right-wing; it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
I honor you for creating millions of jobs through enterprise, ingenuity and hard work. Thank you for inviting me to work beside you. I apologize for disrupting the workplace. I apologize for bringing my hypergamous instincts and provocative dress into the workplace, thereby disordering what was once a well functioning and highly productive male hierarchy. I apologize for introducing sexual harassment policies that destroy workplace cohesion.
For those confused by the term “hypergamous,” you’ll have to read Roissy. Warning: your opinion of John will now grow by the experience. “Inviting me to work beside you…” Oh, how very nice of men; by now you know the drill.
I respect and honor all the soldiers, police and firemen who have sacrificed their lives to keep me, and my family, free and safe.
Absolutely.
I apologize for pushing crippling double standards into the military and first responder agencies. I apologize for demanding that as a “soldier” I can pass physical fitness tests at levels that would constitute a failure for a man and then demanding to be treated with equal respect.
Why not John? Wait, you didn’t harass that fat guy trying to make it across the Jungle Gym in 6th grade did you? Oh no.
I apologize for the deaths I have caused by forcing myself into fire departments when I could not pull the victims out of the burning building.
I’ll look for the study in your footnotes. It better be there.
I acknowledge that boys and girls have different learning styles and we have radically shifted education to support girls. I realize how important men are as teachers and I apologize for driving men out of the teaching industry on fears of pedophilia accusations. I apologize to little boys for subjecting them to a feminized education experience that impedes learning, denigrates men and drives them out of higher education.
Boys do seem to have recently fallen behind, a situation that should be vigorously addressed. I’m not sure about the pedophilia witch hunt.
I honor you for wanting to fully develop your mind so you can maximize your contribution to humanity. I apologize for watering down the high-stakes, high-abstraction, high difficulty standards boys thrive on in exchange for the low difficulty continuous assessment that favors girls. I apologize for all the boys that would be valedictorians if intelligence mattered rather than the ability to perform mind-numbing tasks.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you propose that boys are superior in school, but at the same time they are failing. To reconcile this contradiction, it is actually the method of education that is unsuitable to boys and has been nefariously subverted by female influence? So school is becoming some kind of sissy thing, and boys can’t relate. Does that pretty much sum it up?
I appreciate men for creating room for me in higher education. I apologize for squandering society’s scarce higher education resources. I apologize for using affirmative action laws to exclude a better qualified man from the first-rate graduate program and then quitting my “career” after only a few years in business.
I can’t remember the exact statistic, but 30% (?) of childbearing women do not reenter their career. So to you this is some kind of massive waste, I assume because you don’t consider an educated mother a valuable asset. And again, your opinion on affirmative action is irrelevant.
To be continued…
Mary wrote:
“we’re already seeing LOTS of young men who are skipping college and very unmotivated to join the workforce in any meaningful way. Talk to young women these days, they are finding it harder than ever to find a 20 something guy who is at least as motivated as they are. I don’t think this is a “conscious” choice of young men, mostly an instinctual one. And one that could have a more serious impact to our society long-term. ”
Damned right, and I can’t wait. That’s just an indicator that young men want a different, more balanced way. They think they have more than a paycheck to contribute, and that they are more than their job. But they’re also more likely to start their own businesses because they don’t want to play the alpha dog corporate hierarchy game where the rewards are far off in their future, if they kiss the right butt the right way long enough. Autonomy is the name of the game for both women and men these days. that’s a good thing.
omg, this whole thing is a complete crock:
john wrote:
“The question has been raised in comments to the effect of “if men are so smart, how did they lose control of women.”
Because women tend to cluster in the middle in most abilities and behaviors. Nature seems to have designed men to be much more variable. In addition to the differences in cognition that I discussed in my last comment, men and women exhibit significant differences in temperament. One of these is that women are more conscientious. This characteristic emerges in childhood. We see it routinely in the way girls do their homework and turn in the neatly written assignments on time. This is why they make better students. Its also why women vote more. it’s what we are supposed to do.
For these reasons, after women were given the right to vote, they became the dominant voting block. The system is still controlled by men. It always will be. But the men who control the system are now highly incentivized to curry favor with the dominant voting block – women. This is how women indirectly have been able to change the system in their favor.
The losers are beta males. What is really at work here is alpha males (politicians) doing the bidding of women to restrict the access of beta males to most of the emoluments of life – just as it was in pre-civilized times.”
*****
How can you say with certainty that men will always rule the system when it’s changing right under their feet? sounds more like machismo to me.
Women as a voting block alone are not responsible for all this change. Men have had to help, too, voting and otherwise.
That’s what you don’t seem to want to see. A lot of men want change, too.
To continue to categorize men as alpha and beta, clinging to ape analogies while at the same time feigning to discuss the evolution of consciousness amuses me.
Oh, and women weren’t “given” the right to vote. They fought for it, even enduring arrest, imprisonment and torture. Please.
If women are so innately conscientious and do what they’re “supposed to do,” why defy men and the status quo and fight for the vote, then employ it to their advantage?
It’s probably a good time to ask John and Mary Allen if any of these objections have made a dent at all. Would you modify the Manifesto in any way now that you’ve had this input, and if so, how?
Chris said: “It is apparent from what I’ve seen from their comments that JM, Minerva, et al are wedded to a religion of victimhood and male-resentment. They don’t seem to hold women responsible for much, not for domestic abuse against other women in lesbian relationships, or against children (especially small sons) or against male partners. They blame the patriarchy for everything and ignore the power and influence of the matriarchy. They seem to see only female vulnerability and powerlessness while ignoring male sacrifice and vulnerability”
scratching my head here..and hec..i’ll scratch yours too..LoL If anything, your comment remains anchored in victim hood and blame, which are the furthest thing from the my truth..happy awakening!
My first comment is, what was the outcome and intention of the manifesto?. In the world of Truth, there is subjective truth and factual truth. Many people want to make subjective truth factual truth.
And in the world of truth, truth heals and truth can cause massive pain as well. People who carry alot of guilt through there lives, and there are many, will potentially be very offended and hurt by both factual and subjective truth.
In my 25 years of research along with reading 2500 books, I have discovered what I call “The Happiness Formula”. It is based on 3 core issues that appear to direct ones destiny when it comes to Happiness and Fulfillment. When I apply “The Happiness Formula” to the manifesto it tends to neutralize it. The formula is as follows: You must forgive yourself and others, the soooner the better. You must be Honest with yourself and truthful with everyone, no exceptions. You must develope your self worth, which has nothing to do with the external world. When this formula is practiced, it appears to address almost every personal, nationwide and worldwide challenge.
We have come to a place where we have normalized behavior that is distructive to the human spirit and soul. The Happiness Formula brings back growth.
“The Happiness Formula”
1. You must forgive yourself and others, the sooner the better.
2. You must be Honest with yourself and truthful with everyone, no exceptions.
3. You must develop your self worth, which has nothing to do with the external world.
AMEN!
To address Mint E. Fresh’s last comment:
How can we say that men will always rule the system? Because the fundamental nature of human society is that the clever get what they want. I think that most of the readers of this blog don’t know what they don’t know. They have no idea of the magnitude of male dominance at the upper end of the range of human intelligence. They are not more intelligent because they were privileged or others faced discrimination. They are more intelligent because that’s how they were born. In general powerful people get to positions of power through the compounding effect of choice. Life is a million IQ tests, some big, most small. Over a lifetime the most clever among us percolate to the top. There is no way to stop this process nor would we want to. We want the brightest people running things, as long as their activities are appropriately regulated.
Regarding the statement “women were not given the right to vote; they fought for it.”
The beginning of truth is to call things by their right names. “Fought” means opposing forces physically engaged in combat and one side won and the other side lost. This means there was a shooting war and lots of people died on a battlefield. None of this happened in women’s struggle for equality. Women literally nagged their way onto equality. Men yielded because of their sense of justice. Had men collectively decided that women should not vote they would not be able to vote today.
Regarding the point about women “defying” men: Women are not defying anything. They are simply acting in accordance with their instincts. Civilization is a mechanism for channeling those instincts in productive ways.
Regarding Hunt’s comment about how we would change the Manifesto now that we have seen all the comments:
The style needed to be direct in order to get people’s attention. I think no amount of softening would have prevented the ad homimem responses or the denial of facts in the comments. The content
Perhaps if we had softened it people would have been more receptive to the message. But I think it was the underlying message itself that stirred so much resistance.
There is another video out there done by a group of women that more closely follows the style of Arjuna’s original Manifesto. While I think the style is too drippy and apologetic, they do make lots of good points.
1. So, women have:
eroding America’s freedom by pushing socialist policies that are bankrupting this country
Yet during the right to vote movement:
Men yielded because of their sense of justice. Had men collectively decided that women should not vote they would not be able to vote today.
2. Does this mean that you perceive the males sense of justice, their intellect & decision making was faulty at that time?
3. So, are you thinking if women didn’t vote, we could save the beta-male & in turn save civilization?
For these reasons, after women were given the right to vote, they became the dominant voting block. The system is still controlled by men. It always will be. But the men who control the system are now highly incentivized to curry favor with the dominant voting block – women. This is how women indirectly have been able to change the system in their favor.
The losers are beta males. What is really at work here is alpha males (politicians) doing the bidding of women to restrict the access of beta males to most of the emoluments of life – just as it was in pre-civilized times.
4. And if we give our young men women & children as legal “property” this will help motivate our young men?
Men are motivated to care for families only if those families are “theirs,” which means men have to have some legal claim to their wives and children as was the case in the 19th century
5. Do you think men are more intelligent than women?
Because the fundamental nature of human society is that the clever get what they want. I think that most of the readers of this blog don’t know what they don’t know. They have no idea of the magnitude of male dominance at the upper end of the range of human intelligence. They are not more intelligent because they were privileged or others faced discrimination. They are more intelligent because that’s how they were born
The “rare” practice of female genital mutilation,
FGM is practiced in at least 26 of 43 African countries7; the prevalence varies from 98 percent in Somalia to 5 percent in Zaire. A review of country-specific Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) shows FGM prevalence rates of 97 percent in Egypt8, 94.5 percent in Eritrea9, 93.7 percent in Mali 10, 89.2 percent in Sudan 11, and 43.4 percent in the Central African Republic
http://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm
The aim of the process is to ensure the woman is faithful to her future husband. Some communities consider girls ineligible for marriage if they have not been circumcised.
The first episode of sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful for infibulated women, who will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their partner access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the partner with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.
In a study of infibulation in the Horn of Africa, Pieters observed that the procedure involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching. In some cases the girl’s legs have been tied together for two to six weeks, to prevent her from moving and to allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains but the walls of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of an opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through
10 to 20,000 babies per year die at childbirth due to FGM in Africa alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
fight:
a battle or combat.
2.
any contest or struggle: a fight for recovery from an illness.
3.
an angry argument or disagreement: Whenever we discuss politics, we end up in a fight.
If you have a fight with your wife do you necessarily leave her dead on the ground? So I think the word is quite appropriate, and don’t lose sight of the overall point. Do you thank someone for treating you justly? Perhaps, as in “thanks for not being an idiot,” which would probably be the only type of thanks men should have gotten for sharing the vote: “thanks for finally realizing you’ve been wrong.”
I think you misunderstood my request for reflection on the Manifesto. It wasn’t to reconsider how to better convey your pearls of timeless wisdom, but rather if there is anything substantive you might have second thoughts about.
One thing I’m particularly curious about is whether you think there might be anything wrong with lifting amateur opinions from websites like Citizen Renegade and presenting them as well-researched truths?
Just want to add to John’s comments about men dominating the very tippy top of the system and how the highest IQ’s in the world are men. I could see a little hair rising up on necks…
Honestly, as a women, considering this truth makes my stomach turn. Or rather, my ego cringe. Isn’t that why we always react? Our egos are tricksters.
But, let’s sit back for a minute and consciously look at this objectively. After all, there is lots of evidence that men have an edge on women at the highest end of the bell curve. That means there are more freakishly intelligent men than women.
When I acknowledge the very brightest minds are men…
It doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of highly intelligent women.
It doesn’t mean that I’m not intelligent.
It doesn’t mean that I’m stupid.
It doesn’t mean that ALL men are more intelligent than ALL women.
It doesn’t mean that I’m not more intelligent than A LOT of men.
It doesn’t mean that women don’t contribute A LOT to society in many, many ways… in typical male jobs and lots of other ways too.
It doesn’t mean that men contribute MORE than women.
And even when we say, men “dominate” in intelligence (mental IQ) — there are LOTS of women that are more intelligent than men. Just visit Skid Row, or a first grade or high school class.
And ladies… WE dominate in Emotional IQ, as expressed in the Manifesto for Conscious Men.
It doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of highly emotional men.
It doesn’t mean that I’m more emotional than ALL men.
It doesn’t mean that ALL men are less emotional than ALL women.
It doesn’t mean that men don’t FEEL at all (though sometimes it seems that way — sorry guys).
What is the obsession with equality? Sure…equal rights. And equal opportunities. Equal rights, balances with equal responsibilities. (Where there are rights, there are responsibilities)
I think we’re doing pretty well, women. Our sisters and brothers (yes, both) have helped us have greater equality.
But, we’ll never be “equal.”
That’s not the way God designed us. We each have strengths and weaknesses.
And, yes we keep evolving. Men have become more in touch with their emotions through the years, and perhaps women are even sharper mentally. And, certainly we’ve contributed to society in many more ways than just raising children and supporting our husbands.
To appreciate the manifesto, it is essential to pull yourself out of the personal — and recognize John is speaking about groups… not comparing individuals. Many people get hung up on this. Our egos don’t like to separate out the personal from things like the manifesto.
So, as a conscious woman… I’m okay with the top, what 10, 100 or 500 or 10,000+ most freakishly intelligent people in the world are men. I’m not going to lose sleep over this. I’m happy they are on the planet, inventing cool things.
One of our close friends (a man) is the 5th largest patent holder in the world. 150+ patents (don’t quote me on the number), most in the biomedical device field. Working on ways to go in and specifically treat cancer cells in breast tissue, glaucoma treatments, and a bunch of other stuff. Our women threatened by this intelligence? Or do we all get to benefit from his contributions to society.
There are plenty of strengths men have over women. And strengths women have over men. Acknowledging this doesn’t mean I don’t love my sisters, it just means I’m sane enough to recognize measurable differences.
Men are also physically STRONGER than women… in general. Take the top strongest 1000 people in the world, and MAYBE there would be a few women in there… more likely it would be dominated by men. Another category of domination 🙂
Since women, in general, don’t value physical strength in the same way as intelligence — guessing women are NOT offended by the truth that “Men are stronger than women… in general.” (and yes… there are some women, stronger than some men.)
Again, my ego doesn’t like that men were gifted with more freakish intelligence… but, my inner peace does not need to go down the toilet because this is the reality.
Hunt,
Is there anything substantive I might have second thoughts about? Yes. When Mary asked to post this Manifesto on her blog, I resisted at first primarily because the is a very difficult subject to explain to an innumerate audience. Some degree of facility with data and basic statistics is required do understand why the world is the way it is. The whole male/female IQ debate is a perfect example. Typically on HBD (human biodiversity) blogs you have a fairly numerate audience so you don’t have to sift through lots of “in my opinion” type comments to find a few interesting ones that actually make you think. I would have preferred to have everyone read a primer on logical thinking first but that ain’t never gonna happen.
Citizen Renigade? That blog primarily discusses game. I have not said a thing about game. Do you mean to imply that I lifted the alpha/beta thing from Roissy? Sorry, but lots of people were talking about that long before Roissy came along. It’s basic evo phsych stuff, which I do not cite it as fact, but only theory. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.
Hunt,
Do you really want to get into a semantic argument over the meaning or “fought.” I think you are bright enough to know what I mean when I say that women were given the vote. They were given it because part of the mood of the times. Expanding liberty for all seemed like a good idea to a lot of people at the time.
But they did not win it by fighting. They won it through persistent nagging. Ask yourself what women would have done had men collectively decided women should not vote. Would they have staged an armed insurrection?
By the way read Winston Churchill opinion as he stated it at the time. His argument against female suffrage is as valid today as it was a century ago. Ann Coulter and Vox Day articulate this opinion equally well today.
Hi All,
Want to again thank everyone who has contributed here… whether you’re in full support of it, or are challenging every line of it. I wish I could respond personally to every question and every point. John and I are doing our best over here to respond thoughtfully and respectfully.
John pointed to part of the challenge… that some readers aren’t familiar with some of the basic conscious thinking tools. Would love to encourage those who are genuinely curious to “understand” more… go to: http://www.theconsciouscitizen.com John and I lead a 6 week free teleclass, which including some easy to understand “thinking tools”. All the MP3’s and class handouts are free.
Hunt asked a question about any second thoughts to the Manifesto. Sure. The biggest ones I’d adjust are the quips that hurt people’s feelings unnecessarily… like the reference to watching the “Eat, Pray, Love” movie with your cat.
I also wish I’d framed the manifesto as more of a parody, than a “feel good” piece. For those that would like something like that, check out this video called Dear Man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voCNN5cD6rw
They’ve even included a couple additions that didn’t make our manifesto. I’ll post this video, on a separate post — should you want to comment on it.
We’re not done addressing questions… stay tuned.
Ah, there it is. Knew this piece had to have something to do with marketing something:
“go to: http://www.theconsciouscitizen.com John and I lead a 6 week free teleclass, which including some easy to understand “thinking tools”. All the MP3′s and class handouts are free.” Just give you my name and eMail, right?
John, the next time you want to apologize to the men of the world on behalf of women, I suggest you spend a year in the middle east disguised as a woman. Lets see how apologetic you are on our behalf after you experience first hand what it is to be the property of a MAN… if you survive, that is.
Thank you for this Manifesto and it must be correct as far too many feminists and manginas are raising hell trying to discredit it. So well done and it is about time that a male denigrating society was told the truth as much as they refuse to comprehend it..
To clarify, the materials on The Conscious Citizen are free. And, while we’re gathering names and emails, we don’t currently send anything to that list. If or when we ever send something to that list… you’re welcome to unsubscribe.
Have to say it’s quite an experience to be on the receiving end of so much anger, directed toward me and John. As a reminder, we’re human beings over here. Not minimizing the atrocities women have endured. Just shining a light on how men have — in many ugly ways — been affected by women. Some ways you may agree with, some not.
I can see how many women have an excruciatingly difficult time acknowledging how women have hurt men. Not easy to acknowledge our shadow side as a gender.
We’ve gone out of our way to be respectful, and welcome all messages. Would love to request our commenters write to us in the manner you’d like to be written personally too.
Thank you Christian! :))
What I don’t understand from either of you, John and Mary, is what is your outcome of this Manifesto? What were you hoping to gain other than to elicit drama?
Your Manifesto does not offer solutions and your comments just keep justifying your claims over and over all in the name of “fact” and “truth”. And you know what they say… “If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem” and also “You can’t solve a problem at the same level of consciousness it was created.”
So where do we go from here?
Mary, you posted right while I was, and to your comment about “I can see how many women have an excruciatingly difficult time acknowledging how women have hurt men. Not easy to acknowledge our shadow side as a gender.”
I ask you, why is that MY problem and who says that I am not fully integrated with my shadows? I have not personally participated in any of the “atrocities against men” you claim. I am fully in touch with my shadow and both my masculine and feminine sides.
I do not, never have, and never will hold grudges against “men” just because I was sexually abused as a child or just because I was sucked in and used as a scapegoat by the “Good ol’ boys network” in a corporate scandal at 22 inside a Fortune 100 company.
I have been used and abused by men a ton in my life, yet it never occurs to me to blame them. Instead, I chose forgiveness and acceptance that I am the creator of my own reality and how I choose to feel is MY choice.
Wow. This has such a Rush Limbaugh feel to it. I can’t believe anyone hasn’t used the term neo-feminist yet.
Mary just posted about men being more intelligent. It did go from men being more intelligent to the most intelligent people in the world being men. I just read this link & found it very interesting. By reading this, I am seeing the former generations of women subconsciously (and by social expectation) downplayed their intelligence in deference to men. Now, I can somewhat see this in my own generation with some of the females.. but not my daughters generation. Neither male nor female expects deference.
This is socialization, not genetic, nor divine design that Mary & John keep insisting on.
I believe it to be the highest form of co-dependency that society no longer needs nor wishes to engage in.
Quote from link:
Are men smarter than women? No. But they sure think they are. An analysis of some 30 studies by British researcher Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College London, shows that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ. But women, it seems, underestimate their own candlepower (and that of women in general), while men overestimate theirs
Do women tend to think that men are smarter than they are?
Surprisingly, [both] men and women perceive men being smarter across generations. Both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.
What about the kids?
If there are children, [both] men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/22/he-s-not-as-smart-as-he-thinks.html
Also concerning the sexual mutilation of our children: women did not have a voice nor a vote. It was the superior & intelligent man who not only instigated this practice but allowed it to become common place. I am not understanding why the female sector is required to apologize for it ? So much for standing up to your brothers, eh?
care practitioners of the Victorian era, infected with the anti-sexual fervor of their time, began to advocate male and female circumcision as a way to cure both boys and girls of the evil and dangerous habit of “onanism,” i.e., masturbation.
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, whose brother Will found lasting fame in sugary breakfast cereals, campaigned relentlessly for aggressive action against masturbation in both sexes, basing his views on the Bible and on the works of other sexually uptight physicians, such as Dr. Adam Clarke,
http://npaper-wehaa.com/boulder-weekly/2011/05/05/#2011/06/23/?article=1306572
Should the women of the Triangle Shirt Factory Fire be grateful that they had jobs? Should the women who experienced the “night of terror” apologize for their beatings? Should the Chinese women who were enslaved, kidnapped or sold into western prostitution in the 19th century be thankful for their golden ticket to the promised land? Should today’s women of Islam submit to the torture of their alpha males?
This “manifesto” is akin to a slave owner apologizing for his slave asserting her rights, fighting for her freedom and demanding that she have a voice. How dare she?!
There is much to apologize for on both sides. Yes. Yet, this manifesto does little to bring us together and only further divides in its exploitation of the wounds of our mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers. Women who fought for the rights that many (yet not all) women enjoy today.
“Mary Allen on June 28, 20114:02 pm
But, we’ll never be “equal.”
That’s not the way God designed us. We each have strengths and weaknesses.
Mary Allen, you’re confusing “equal” with “identical”. Equal does not mean the same strengths and weaknesses, it means the right and ability to use whatever skills and abilities we have for the betterment of ourselves, our families and our societies.
Hey ya,
First off, good work.
From my studies all your points are technically correct. Whenever I find massivly differing opinions on an important subject I look to the primary sources, and then I look to the primary critisisms of those sources.
While I agree with the technical points, I hate the us/them slant of the piece.
I think it was completely necessary. It’s like nuclear weapons. If one side has the bomb the other side must have it too. But splitting the world into two groups along gender lines and judging them by their membership to a group is the very definition of sexism.
That being said, the piece needed to be written to show what the other side of the coin looks like. If articles like “Dear Woman” are not responded to, the general public only hear one voice. (no thanks to the general media)
Nobody should be held accountable or made to appologise for somone elses crime. It might be nice to make a clear distinction between the conscious public (who aren’t sexist), the sheep (who adhear to the bigotry of the moment) and the feminists of both sexes (who actively promote sexism).
So while I applaud the article, I hate it’s necessity.
“the right and ability to use whatever skills and abilities we have for the betterment of ourselves, our families and our societies”
(continued) without deference to or exclusion by gender, age, or sexuality.
John,
I have to disagree again, when you say men are just naturally superior and therefore will be on top socially, now and forever more. It’s not man’s
“cleverness” that has helped him, but his willingness to use use violence to ascend over the initial matriarchal societies humans first formed, and have used violence and systemic disempowerment of women to stay there. hardly sounds like superiority, but more like insecurity. why so afraid to let women out from under?
women absolutely fought for their right to vote. you can call it semantics if you like. it wasn’t going to be “given” to them otherwise.
voting isn’t an instinct, last i checked. but at least you acknowledge women have desires of their own. even if you would like to suppress every one of them if you could.
you are an extreme case, john. ruthless and utterly without an ounce of humanity. i’m sure you’ll take that as a compliment. but i guess that’s because you don’t consider women human. the thing that’s missing from all your statistics is context. sexism exists. changes in society are attempting to redress and rebalance that.
you have to share the planet with women. you don’t have more of a right to exist than women do, no matter what measurements you want to use to favor yourself. women absolutely will catch up in terms of achievement and intellectual ranking in the upper levels as they continue to be exposed to the requisite backgrounds and acquire the skills and education for such achievement. men are not born knowing how to build rockets and bridges, they have to learn that. women can, too. while this study: http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/22/he-s-not-as-smart-as-he-thinks.html confirms that men are both at the top and bottom of the IQ scale, it also says the reason a man with a lower IQ may get the job is because his ego is bigger than his IQ. Though i’m sure you can’t imagine why any woman would have a self-esteem or self-worth issue in a world that doesn’t value her, high performing women often don’t think they’re as smart as they are.
also, john? a little secret. smart women play stupid so as not to rock the boat. again, i know you may find it hard to imagine, but some men become quite threatening if a woman displays more intelligence, ingenuity or ability than they have or are comfortable in seeing in a woman. but hopefully that too will change as women are increasingly supported in achievement, rather than thwarted, and will continue to score higher in these oh so important tests.
also occurred to me, since you admitted you’re a sexist, that any woman under your supervision at work or in an academic environment wouldn’t get a fair shake. you’ve made it clear you don’t think women are as intelligent or as able as men.i can’t imagine you ever promoting a woman or giving her a good review, awarding her research funds or whatever the hypothetical case may be, when those things could go to a man instead. and then you would wonder why the women aren’t achieving the same.
it’s true that a lot of women enter and drop out of the engineering profession, for example, because of the rampant sexism and boys club mentality that stifles their advancement. then people like you say they’re not smart enough as the reason. itty bitty wittle brains just can’t comprehend all that science and stuff. there are other factors when you have a minority group attempting to assimilate into the areas of privilege, access, achievement and accomplishment of the privileged group than just tests. the attitude of hostility towards women you consistently display is certainly one of them.
At first I thought that Mint E. Fresh was for real, but her straw man and ad hominem attacks have become so bizarre that I suspect she’s trolling.
I met a lot of these type of feminists at Uni. Also in the work place where they accused all and sundry of sexism. They domino. Only men hit. You prove them wrong. When women hit it’s self defence. You prove them wrong. It was pre-emptive self defence. You prove them wrong. You just hate women.
I’d put money on her NOT having this reaction in the comments section of “Dear Woman”.
I guess she just doesn’t like equal treatment.
Now I think I understand what’s going on here:
oops, link:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
Care to give a specific example, Aus, because I haven’t said anything about men hitting and women hitting only in self defense. Talk about straw man. When I referred to violence it was as overall cultural violence and threat of violence. You know, it can be as veiled as how we tell women not to walk alone or drink too much or don’t wear that/think that/say that or piss men off. All the way up to the more overt acts of violence.
Maybe you should read my comment where I agreed that men should report domestic battery so it doesn’t go under reported and then somehow blame women for that?
Not all men are sexist, but you can’t deny a lot are. And you can’t deny John’s comments are. He even acknowledged as much himself at one point regarding one comment or point in particular, about needing family to be property otherwise there’s no reason to stay invested. I guess just loving them isn’t enough.
“Do you mean to imply that I lifted the alpha/beta thing from Roissy?”
No, that just raised my suspicion. What gave you away was this point from the Manifesto:
“I honor you for remaining steadfast through my often irrational and emotional storms.”
That’s pretty much verbatim Roissy. If you can find some support for it in evolutionary psychology, I’d love to hear about it.
BTW, you’re the one who started the pedantry regarding fight/fought. Fighting for social equity doesn’t necessarily mean civil war, though it often means blood in the streets. The civil rights movement was not a war either. Perhaps you think blacks just nagged their way to equal rights?
Jumping around a bit in the Manifesto, I want to address this point:
I honor you for your fighting spirit and recognize how essential it was to our
survival as a species. I promise to stop complaining about how violent men are
and to acknowledge that I am here today because of battles fought by men, while
I stood on the sidelines cheering them on. I promise to remember that I am the
product of an experiment that had a one-in-a-million chance of success; that not
long ago, humanity clung to survival in tiny numbers and then in a flash went
from this miserable condition to master of the planet, walking the moon,
surveying planets and penetrating interstellar space. I promise to remember that
we got here through strife and competition – nature’s Supreme Court, from whose
verdict there is no appeal.
23
Strong men culled weak ones so that I, bereft of the
genes of the vanquished, may be strong. This is the reproductive function of the
male and I promise to respect where that has taken us.
The only endnote provided for this one is a reference to Democritus. It’s interesting that you should first complain about accusations of male violence, then state that humanity has arrived where it is through violent upheaval wherein men culled the weak from the strong, that in fact we are here because of the battles fought by men (???) Yes, you’re right, perhaps we all need a lesson on logic.
There is of course on massive an unfounded assumption you’re making here, which is that warfare actually culls undesirable (according to you) traits from the gene pool. Perhaps it’s due to too many Hollywood movies that we picture the strong and impervious warrior unstoppably chopping down his weak opponents. History probably more closely followed the pattern that aggressive, confident (alpha?) men were among the first to die in battle, the field being left to those who understood the better part of valor.
Women and children died in battle too, more so in modern times. In fact the balance of casualties has recently shifted from those of professional soldier to hapless innocents.
“Now I think I understand what’s going on here:”
Yeah, all the pieces kind of fit into place once you read Roissy.
btw, aus et al, i’m not trolling at all. i was genuinely interested and had a good time having this debate. it has definitely run it’s course for me though. no one’s changing their minds either way anyway, that’s for sure, ha. but…i have spent way too much time on here. back to reality. you can have the twilight zone of “alpha game,” lol.
From “The 16 commandments…”
IV. Don’t play by her rules
If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.
Thanks, I didn’t think I would be able to find the actual quote. John, dude, you are so busted…
So now are you willing to at least reconsider one point of the Manifesto, considering it was lifted from a pop amateur blog about getting laid?
I think the most violating aspect of this manifesto is is that it was written by a man…for women.
One man took it upon himself to speak for the entire feminine collective. It reflects the dominance, the control, & the manipulation of the manifesto.
It’s FRAUD to say as a “woman to men”. It’s Deceptive to call this “A Manifesto for Conscious Women”.
This is more about the wounded man, fighting for his right to be caretaken….and nothing to do with the woman who wishes to heal the masculine counterpart.
And Mary, in her attempt to please her husband & to adopt his views, betrayed the feminine aspect that has known the struggle of finding her voice.
The intent of this manifesto has become obvious. The upside being is that it did not succeed. The conscious woman is here in all of the replies, speaking her own truth, her own knowledge, her own experiences….using her own voice.
Karen stated,
Ladies and those who think my posting the Manifesto on my blog is an act of submission or spinelessness. Far from it. I’m a lover of reality. Not just the non-dual reality (which isn’t relevant to this post, but one I enjoy).
Reality is what is present before the mind starts adding labels, judgments, interpretations or story (which arise through thought and emotion). I’m a lover of “what is.” What is tangible, measurable, and objective. To the extent we resist reality (arguing with it mentally, emotionally, spiritually or physically) we create pain and suffering within us. Accepting and acknowledging reality for what it is… and what it isn’t… doesn’t mean we LIKE it or PREFER it. It simply is “what is.” I love separating out “reality” from emotional hodge-podge, contradicting viewpoints, and data. Critical thinking allows me to be a good coach (along with intuition and other coaching skills).
How have I “betrayed the feminine aspect that has known struggle in finding her voice?”
If you have two children and they’ve been feuding, how is acknowledging harm caused to ONE as betrayal to the other? Shouldn’t they both acknowledge the harm caused to each other?
The feminists can’t seem separate out our men’s reality without including THEIR feminine wounds. It’s a double standard.
Feminists essentially are saying, “Look at my pain. Look at my suffering. Look at how men have wronged me. Look at me.”
This manifesto is simply shining a light on men… and many just can’t stand the attention diverted away from them for a minute. This is exactly why men get annoyed with women. It IS largely about US. SO much of the time. And, men like to make women happy, so they give us this attention. Our men deserve ours. And, if we don’t give it…we deserve to be alone.
Even if I had published the Manifesto ONLY to support my husband, why would that be a bad thing?
Not the case here… I’ve spent hours and hours in conversation with John, and we carefully added and edited it together. Had no idea it would create such fertile ground for conversations about reality, inner peace, and emotional storms. But, don’t regret one minute of it!
Ahhhh, KarenS, you nailed it!! Thank you for expressing what I couldn’t seem to find the words for. Brava!!
Ladies and Hunt,
Mind you of my participation in writing and editing this Manifesto. The statement “I honor you for remaining steadfast through my often irrational and emotional storms.” is one of the statements I wrote. Roissy gets no credit there. Sorry to disappoint in your speculation. And, this statement in particular is very heartfelt and genuine. David Deida who writes a lot about the dynamics between masculine and feminine energies, and often refers to many women’s upsets, as “an emotional storm.” Tony Robbins also speaks to these dynamics. I’ve noticed that no women have argued about this one, because we all know what it’s liked to have our emotions hijacked. Even the most centered women lose control.
And women, let’s get honest… most men endure “irrational and emotional storms” from us. And, MANY of these aren’t nearly as justified as we believe them in the moment. I doubt I’m the only woman who has apologized after-the-fact-for over-reacting because I was not connected to my own power, was caught in fear or simply hormonal. If we’ve got a solid man, they’ll remain grounded and present in love…and that surely helps speed up the return to sanity (My John is actually pretty good at this most of the time). Some men are far less skilled at this, and our emotional storms trigger their emotional reactions. That’s where nasty arguments come in. Certainly there are times when women have real reasons to be upset. Those aren’t “emotional storms.” Yet, far more often, I see women getting irrationally upset and men get the brunt of it all.
Secondly, if you caught an earlier comment… this manifesto is purposely written as a parody and retort. My bad for not making that clearly. I can see how “deceptive” fits. Yet, A Manifesto for Conscious Men was only half of the story. As Voice from Aus said, “It was completely necessary.” In both style and content. Genuinely sorry if it offends. Anything less would’ve been perceived as obligatory.
Our intention of the Manifesto? To raise awareness of the “other side of the story.” To spark a curiosity in realities happening to our men.
The intention is NOT to minimize women’s gifts.
The intention is NOT for women to feel guilty.
The intention is NOT to disrespect respectful women.
As many have pointed out, it’s ludicrous to apologize for crimes we didn’t commit.
That’s why you see a fair number of women compassionately acknowledging each aspect of the Manifesto. They can find the truth in each statement for themselves, and nod their head. They aren’t taking it personally. They can recognize these maladies are real, even if there are a few flippant remarks that sting. They can make peace with each statement without feeling compelled to verbally attack and discredit its authors.
And to those who are challenging aspects of the manifesto by pointing to data which reveals a different story… that’s appreciated, as it invites understanding. I love considering each new study, and exploring the results in an effort to find the highest truths. Who knows, maybe that means altering or discarding a statement or two from the Manifesto. I’m certainly not attached to being right. I’m a lover of truth.
LOTS of people are SO reactive and angry. This interferes with clear thinking.
I ask, “Are you genuinely open to sound data that contradicts something you’ve believed your entire life?” Real evolution comes more readily as we develop this ability in ourselves.
The secondary purpose of the Manifesto is to serve as a playground for personal growth and greater everyday inner peace. Can you make peace with harsh realities? What can you learn about how you discern truth? How do you sit with your emotional reactions? How do you respond to other’s who hold a completely different perspective? Can you catch “spiritual bypassing” tendencies? Can you raise questions and challenge the manifesto without falling prey to Ad-hominem attacks, Straw-Man or Red Herring Fallacies? Are you open to communicating respectfully on a topic that pushes your buttons?
While it may seem the Manifesto doesn’t belong on this blog… those who are truly on a path of consciousness have a rich place to practice. Rewards to those who go for it. And, if you’ll duly note, you can take each of the above inquiries on fully and truly evolve… without just blindly accepting our manifesto as “the last word” or perfect. (Though, big thanks to those who appreciate it exactly as it is!)
Should be easy to discern who read this comment moving forward…
The tired old lie that women are ‘paid less than men for the same job’ has been debunked so many times that anyone who still touts it is advertising their own economic illiteracy.
Women are paid 77% of what men are paid, but for doing only 50% of the work.
Also, men give money to women and never the other way around. So women overwhelmingly enjoy higher living standards than men. And yes, this was true even 200 years ago. The notion that the average man, who died in wars, on ships, in coalmines, had it better than the average woman who was indoors tending to children, is laughable.
Someone like Mint E. Fresh is so heavily indoctrinated that no amount of common sense could reach her/him. It is amazing how blind to reality one can be once they have decided that they are a victim.
Thanks Tom. Well said 🙂
Wow, Tom, I’d sure like to see the facts that back these statements up:
[i]Also, men give money to women and never the other way around.
Women are paid 77% of what men are paid, but for doing only 50% of the work. [/i]
Yes. The same could be said of men who feel they have been so abused by womankind, when in fact they have been their own Masters and Abusers.
My post seems a nonsequitur as I had not refreshed to reveal Mary’s post. Let me try again.
Tom on June 29, 20113:38 pm said:
“Someone like Mint E. Fresh is so heavily indoctrinated that no amount of common sense could reach her/him. It is amazing how blind to reality one can be once they have decided that they are a victim.”
Yes. The same could be said of men who feel they have been so abused by womankind, when in fact they have been their own Masters and Abusers.
Mary Allen: I agree that “what is” is the starting point, the place to honor and forgive all that has taken place. And then we need to stop focusing our attention on “what is” (and especially on “what WAS”) and focus on what we want to create. If we maintain our focus on “what is” and “what was” we will never change what can be.
Salty,
“Mary Allen: I agree that “what is” is the starting point, the place to honor and forgive all that has taken place.”
I agree with this 100%. One of my mentors emailed me this last night.
“The war between the genders will not stop, I believe, until both can openly gaze upon the harm done by both and GRIEVE together…”
From here… perhaps new ways of addressing the problems identified in both manifestos can be co-created.
And then we need to stop focusing our attention on “what is” (and especially on “what WAS”) and focus on what we want to create.
Agreed :))
If we maintain our focus on “what is” and “what was” we will never change what can be.
I’m all for creating a new future. One that includes mutual respect, understanding, compassion and love. It’s wise to learn from from past mistakes, and notice the consequences of things we’ve tried.
One of the greatest of all paradoxes… to recognize things as they are while being diligent about creating something new.
Thank you Salty.
I don’t know, Mary, it’s just really clear that you have convinced yourself that your point of view is the “right” one and in fact, it has become very patronizing, and anyone who is challenging the delivery and content of the Manifesto you shoot down with all kinds of labels such as fallacy, unconscious, indoctrinated, feminist, illogical or whatever other BS labels you and others have used. (And yes, I know you didn’t personally use a few of those words, but others did and you directly acknowledged their posts with agreement.)
While at the same time it’s ok for John to come in here and label and judge an entire sector of society: women and admit he is sexist and poo-poo spiritually conscious concepts such as archetypal Masculine/Femine Energies as “New Age Bullshit.” Well, in MY reality, everything he says is all Bullshit.
And I find it pure folly for you to state that women have much higher EQ than men while in the next post going on and on about women’s “emotional storms”.
And to backpedal at this point claiming that this was a parody——talk about a fallacy! The only one you’re kidding is yourself if you think that we will all sit here and accept that as justification for all the glaringly obvious anger, resentment and condescension written into the Manifesto under the guise of “harsh truth” as well as all of the subsequent comments. Holy shit!!
And don’t you dare come back on and patronize again and label me or my point of view with your “coach-speak” and analysis just because I’m expressing MY point of view because it won’t be received. I don’t want to hear it. I already know exactly what you would say and how you’d say it.
Personally I own my own reality and what I choose to focus on, and I don’t for a second, expect anyone else to experience MY reality the way I do. Your reality is your reality, and for you to try to convince others to adopt your reality is purely self-serving manipulation and complete spiritual unconsciousness. I just don’t get how you can say all the stuff you’ve just said in your last few posts and at the same time promote the works of the likes of Byron Katie, Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra, to name a few that I know you have included in your body of work over the years.
Still scratching my head since my first post/question to John which he wasn’t able to answer.
It does strike me that you and John are using the term conscious to mean Socially Conscious, whereas the original Manifesto meant Spiritually Conscious, and I believe, because of that, most of the responders on this blog who were questioning the Manifesto were also using the context of Spiritually Conscious.
To me, the two are vastly different and unrelated, and that is also the reason for so much cognitive dissonance in the replies to the Manifesto.
And go ahead and call this another ad-hominem attack. *rolling eyes* From MY point of view and in MY reality I am not attacking you, I am expressing disagreement and/or a different perspective. If I wanted to attack you I’d call you names, belittle you and attempt to invalidate you as a person. If me saying that you’re backpedaling and that is a fallacy invalidates you, that is for YOU to look at if that’s how you choose to see it, because it is merely a point of view and absolutely not an attack.
Tom,
Talk about being blind.
first of all, i’m no one’s victim. this manifesto, however, reeks of victimization and blame.
women enjoy a better standard of living than men? where? you’re aware that most people in poverty in this country and the world are women and children, right? “Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2009, 29.9 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 16.9 percent of households headed by single men and 5.8 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty.” http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
that’s not victimizing, that’s a fact.
did you read my post where the UN noted that women have 10% of the property and 5% of the world’s income, while doing 2/3 of the world’s work,most of it for free (in underdeveloped countries, for the most part)? Not victimizing, just facts.
also, what do you mean by the vague “men give money to women and not the other way around?” are you referring to your personal situation?
And Mary, there’s a Richard Bach quote that reminds me of you, “Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they’re yours.”
Mary said:
“The feminists can’t seem separate out our men’s reality without including THEIR feminine wounds. It’s a double standard.”
***
this manifesto does exactly what you describe here. which is fine, if you admit it.
***
“Feminists essentially are saying, “Look at my pain. Look at my suffering. Look at how men have wronged me. Look at me.”
***
Uh, isn’t that the purpose of this manifesto as well,in reverse?
“most men endure “irrational and emotional storms” from us.”
men, too, as fallible human beings, have irrational and emotional storms. it may look and be expressed differently, sometimes not. you are so willing to stereotype yourself! men may not have crying jags or however it is you think women express this, but come on. are men stoic automatons? hardly. often the “storms” can be in the form of some type of aggression, not necessarily physical. Most men flip their shit once in a while. it’s perfectly normal.
Tom wrote: “The notion that the average man, who died in wars, on ships, in coalmines, had it better than the average woman who was indoors tending to children, is laughable.”
Define better? Who felt more alive, do you think? Who had a greater degree of self-determination and autonomy?
Also, then why so unwilling to share the burdens?
I don’t know where you get your history from either, because the only time women were cooped up in some fairy tale Gilded Cage was perhaps Victorian era? And many were bored out of their minds. didn’t want, didn’t like it. too confining. No small wonder that era birthed the “science” of psychoanalysis as women were losing their minds to the boredom and confinement of “proper society.”
Many, not all, women would rather suffer and die right along side men if – comparatively – it meant living a life worth living, however briefly, if their other options were severely limited.
And in saying all that, I’m not detracting one bit from the sacrifices men make in the scenarios you depict.
I know it’s not “either or.” and i tried mentioning balance between masculine and feminine consciousness, to no avail.
someone recently made the excellent point that the two manifestos are actually not on the same wavelength if we did come here expecting a discussion on consciousness, and not socio-political debate. and that does feel deceptive. also deceptive is trying to now classify this as a parody. say what? now THAT’S funny, lol.
Mint E. Fresh, I thought you weren’t coming back here.
You wrote in responce to Tom: “Define better? Who felt more alive, do you think? Who had a greater degree of self-determination and autonomy? Also, then why so unwilling to share the burdens?”
I grew up with this mind set. The feminists I grew up with were great TWISTERS of perspective.
Boys who were drafted, dragged from their homes and beaten until they were psychotic enough to walk into machine gun fire and then sent overseas to die screaming in a cold ditch, were reframed as “Being allowed to defend their country”.
Women working in sweat shops were slaves. Men working in sweat shops were free and had self determination.
“Also, then why so unwilling to share the burdens?” could you rephrase that as “Why were women so unwilling to share the burden?”.
Jobs in the first world are open to all sexes. Why so few women coal miners, garbage collectors, sewerage workers? These jobs pay very well, and make a big dent in the “Wage Gap” (they are just dangerous, hard and have no status).
And please don’t say they are prevented by sexism, they’re not.
And please don’t say they have children to look after, there are loads of childless women and mothers with grown children, and fathers begging for the chance to be with their kids.
And wow! The feminist UN report? You must really WANT to believe that.
My dad was a cop for 30 years and arrested a lot of con-men. He said there were 2 basic types of cons. The Greed con and the Kind con. The greed con stings the guy who was trying to sting you. But the Kind con is when you take advantage of sombodys kind nature. You call for help and then sting the guy for his kindness.
Feminism is a Kind con. You say women need help and all the kind people believe you and give you money to help the poor women but it’s actually going to hurt men and boys, advertise that men are evil and split up families.
This manifesto is a very violent punch. But if you see it in context it is self defence against the well funded thousands of punches thrown first.
If you believe that feminism is about helping women, ask yourself why the VAWA provides no help to or mention of lesbians in violent relationships. Look at the data: you are more than twice as likely to be beaten in a lesbian relationship than in a straight one.
You’ll have to search under Intimate Partner Violence in pychology journals and not in newspapers or magazines (my mum was a clinical psyc). For some reason it doesn’t come under Domestic Violence.
Tell us; did you have a go at the makers of “Dear Woman”?
Concerning both manifestos…this is definitely “the other side” of the first manifesto. The first promotes love & unity, this one promotes hatred & division. Id almost bet the reason why you went to Huffinton Post instead of Limbaugh & Hannity was to prove a point of the left wing (feminist) media. This is more political than anything. That and promoting the ego. The ego always needs to be right. It always need an enemy.
I think this manifestos was written by aliens..and not the benevolent kind..lol
As repulsed by your gratuitous apology to men as I was by the egotistical post by Arjuna and Gaye… Both posts were/are of the ego and I have no interest in either reading all this bullshit or promoting it on social media.
Geez louise…
Voice From Aus on June 30, 20111:55 am
This manifesto is a very violent punch. But if you see it in context it is self defence against the well funded thousands of punches thrown first.
That is nothing but neanderthal thinking and so far from higher consciousness, I’m throwing up in my mouth. It’s the whole “tit for tat” or “eye for eye” mentality that was the foundation of this Manifesto to begin with that I find so disturbing. Especially coming from and on a blog written by someone who is promoting Inner Peace. Really?
Sandhan on June 30, 20115:48 am
As repulsed by your gratuitous apology to men as I was by the egotistical post by Arjuna and Gaye… Both posts were/are of the ego and I have no interest in either reading all this bullshit or promoting it on social media.
Bravo, Sandhan!!
As I just posted under your new blog post, but just in case people don’t click and go over there, this is what a real parody looks like: http://funnyordie.com/m/5sh8
omg, that was hilarious…I happened not to have a problem with guy on guy.
Voice from Aus:
You’re trying to put words in my mouth. I’m not going to argue with you about the brutality of war. Rich men should stop waging them, no? And a sweat shop is wage slavery regardless of who has to work in it, men, women, children. I never said otherwise.
Women have not been unwilling to share the burdens of tougher work. Where was the opportunity to do so until pretty much this century? Couldn’t even vote until relatively recently. Women haven’t been sitting back eating grapes and living some fantasy life of luxury like Tom imagines.
I don’t know anything about coal mining, but try to imagine being the only woman or one of a few down a mine shaft with a bunch of guys. Perhaps they don’t feel safe? Especially if the guys wouldn’t want them there, which I have a hunch would be the case. It takes time. Yes, in the first world a lot of jobs are open to women, technically, legally, but a woman may not get hired due to an unofficial “men only” policy in hiring. It’s very real. I know you seem to think sexism isn’t real. I see it here at my work. One department had no women at all, for years, and the guy running it didn’t hide his preference in liking it that way. Women applied, it’s good pay and benefits. But he wouldn’t hire a woman until he was told it was unusual his department had no women.
I don’t know how it is in Australia, but in the US where I’m from, garbage collectors and sewerage workers here are municipal/state jobs, with good benefits (garbage workers, not so much), pay and unionized. Men like to keep those jobs for their buddies. They may have to run an ad and even say Equal Opportunity Employer, but the job is already filled with someone they know before the ad ends. Unfortunately, unless they are forced too, a lot of guys in charge of hiring for these jobs won’t hire a woman. I don’t know if it’s always due to sexism, or cronyism. Probably both. As far as dirty jobs, women have traditionally done plenty of dirty jobs, like nursing assistants, for example. Nothing like wiping ass and having someone throw up on you, changing adult briefs and collecting stool samples. Men didn’t start getting into the profession until it became largely unionized and paid better, and there was less of a stigma that nursing was woman’s work.
On the government construction jobs I’ve seen, they have to have a few spots for women to get the contract, and guess what? They have no problem filling them. I’ve seen one woman using the 90 pound jackhammer to break up a sidewalk because the guy took the smaller one!
The UN report is true. Can you prove it isn’t? Do women own most of the world’s property? Do women control the world’s money and economies? Simply, no.
Feminism isn’t evil. It’s necessary. Not a “violent punch” (interesting imagery), but a tap on the shoulder. It’s still very much a man’s world. That needs to be redressed. We need balance. How else to go about it? What is so horrible about women’s issues?
As far a VAWA, it was initially passed in 1994. I don’t think there was the same emphasis or awareness on gay issues then by the government, but, I just did a quick check online and found: “In April, 2010, the Assistant Attorney General, declared that the text, relevant case law, and legislative history all support the conclusion that the Violence Against Women Act applies with equal force in cases when the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex. The Department is working to ensure that all U.S. Attorney offices are aware of the law’s applicability to LGBT relationships.” http://bit.ly/j40EGu So that discrepancy appears to be getting addressed. Maybe now that recourse and resources will bemore widely available to everyone, DV between women will be addressed better.
Thanks Mint E. and Voice from Aus. I have to say you’ve both sustained my interest, and I’ve learned a lot. At some point we need to get beyond bickering and admit that both sexes have been victimized to a certain extent by culture, society, and convention. One of the things I find frustrating is that many people vilify feminism without actually understanding that, in its general sense, feminism attempts to study how social norms have entrapped both sexes. Before the men’s movement, it was women and feminism that got there first, and all of us should appreciate that. For the men in this discussion, you have to realize that without the women’s movement, there would not be a men’s movement. Not yet, anyway.
Can we stop slinging turds at each other and start trying to dig our way out of this mess? I don’t know.
What I find less disappointing than this manifesto is the fact that John has been pretty absent in discussing it. I realize he has a time constraint to deal with, but really when you release something like this, you should be willing to argue it seriously, openly, and thoroughly. Less than that, and you are just toying with the sensibility of your readers. I think we deserve more than that.
Do you think John’s changed his mind, Hunt? He’s gonna come back here and….say the same exact things. Seriously, he’s playing that alpha game thing and got you asking him to come back, lol. It works!
And I don’t think I’m “slinging turds” here. :/
another poster summed up the crux of why this manifesto is disturbing: John is attempting to speak for womankind, literally putting words in their mouths. the Dear Woman manifesto attempts to speak for all men, and obviously they don’t represent all men, but at least they can say they are speaking for themselves!
John is speaking for himself, in a way, but trying to pass this off in the same vein as Dear Woman is seriously lacking in integrity and actually downright deceptive and manipulative.
John is a true believer. I could destroy every point of this Manifesto and he’d still believe it to his core. That’s what being a true believer is.
There is an element of that in all of us. The antidote is to bring yourself to candidly admit when you find an error or when the other side has a point, but a lot of true believers think opening a tiny crack will result in a growing fissure, and the whole edifice might then come tumbling down. This is not true. Speaking for myself, I’m willing to admit that John and V From Aus make some good points, yet my entire world view hasn’t crumbled.
As far as I can see, John can bring himself to concede a single thing, and that probably indicates that we’re wasting our time with him.
Appreciate the continued interest here in the comments section of the Manifesto. Everyone who has posted has added something, if only to capture the extreme emotions and pain felt by the harms between genders. Thank you for that. Every voice represents a part of the real world.
I’ve been lenient, in allowing each persons “full expression” — even when it wanders off topic, is filled with personal attacks (to me or other commenters) or become emotionally violent.
Many condemning the “consciousness” of the Manifesto, are emanating disrespect and toxicity… more akin to what we’d all agree is unconscious. And, I’m sure some have left the thread because it’s draining to read. Each of us deserves to be treated with kindness, even if you don’t agree.
Moving forward, I invite constructive comments that either challenge or support the Manifesto in logic, reason or data. Or otherwise add to the collective learning for all. What elements of the manifesto are faulty in logic or fact? When there are two sets of data saying the opposite, how do we discern which is more valid? What are the concrete next actions we could take to remedy the imbalances that exist?
I’ve attempted to point to some unconscious thinking practices — like Ad-Hominem attacks, logical fallacies and a few definitions, so we might all be discussing this in a more productive way. The biggest source of suffering is unconscious thinking practices. Making up stories. Distorting, exaggerating, minimizing, avoiding facts. Expecting reality to be different that it is (shoulds). Conscious thinking is essential to inner peace, and a healthy discussion here. And not just as it relates to this manifesto, but in interacting with others and yourself in everyday life.
LOTS of comments have been redirecting attention to how women are victims of men. Without question… ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Lots of bad men hurting women. John and I BOTH agree. But, this stream is about how men have been harmed by women. It’s about how men have been repressed, harmed and taken advantage of. If you’re only here to remind us of how women are victims, please refrain. Point has been made here. No one disagrees.
No doubt, the Manifesto has stirred a lot in many, and I know we haven’t yet sufficiently addressed some of the concerns. And, we’re going to.
Hunt, I know you’ve constructively challenged many of the points within the Manifesto…and John hasn’t finished responding. He’s been in two days of meeting, but I’ve just given him a loving wifey nudge to remind him you’re all here. Sincerely appreciate how you’ve invited him to substantiate each aspect of the Manifesto. Love this!! And, you’ve really done so, largely with respect. Thank you.
Mint, some of your posts have been on topic, and contributed to the stream. Thank you for those. And, many of your posts “off topic” and have been laden with personal attacks and passive aggressive insults. I’m giving you a warning.
I invite you, and everyone else, to speak to John and I as though we were in your living room or restaurant, and are a group of people who genuinely cares for one another. If we can’t demonstrate the respect, kindness, and courtesy in a simple forum like this, how can we expect the world to shift? Let’s all practice here.
All this being said, we don’t expect everyone to simply agree with everything we write. We’re human beings learning and growing each day, as each of us are. Personally, I’m more interested in what’s motivating our thinking, how we come to any conclusion and how we can “be with” any aspect of the Manifesto from a place of genuine peace. The intention is not to convince everyone that we’re “right.”
And for those who feel we haven’t adequately responded, and would still like us to… please feel free to raise the question again. We want to give priority to those of you who are most active in the stream.
We’re listening… more to come.
NOTE: If after you’ve read the above comments you feel I’m just trying to control and manipulate everyone… you’re partly right. I want to keep the discussion constructive and productive, not just a bitching session about us or our counter gender. On that note… let’s continue.
I don’t see much of this in the manifesto:
respect, kindness, and courtesy.
I see more of this: passive aggressive insults.
I also haven’t seen much “discussion” during the replies from either of you, mostly just patronization.
So, this is about men’s rights? Then it is a fraud, as it was done under the guise of spirituality & healing the feminine/masculine. IMO, the piece does not honor men at all. It pretty much insinuates that women have always considered them nothing but chumps. I mean c’mon…women ‘gladly’ took a seat on the life boat while 1000’s went to an icewater grave?
I’m not seeing how any man can walk away from this feeling good. Yes, both men & women have sacrificed over the years, and to insinuate that one looked on gleefully as the other died is a slap in the face to both.
You should have been straight up about your intention. If you had, most of us probably wouldn’t be here. I for one am not interested in debating this type of mentality nor changing this type of mind set anymore than I am interested in listening to Limbaugh & Hannity.
Ok, I’m back.
To follow up on a few comments:
Hunt: I think Mary straightened you out on where the “emotional storm” stuff came from. If you have ever read any of her stuff you know that is classic Mary. Just because some other blogger may have said something very close to what we have said here does not mean we got it from them. I’m still not clear on the other point I’m supposedly “busted” on.
Since many of you have either quoted cherry picked references or simply refuse to believe that what I said in the Manifesto is factual. I’m preparing a list of references that we’ll post a link to.
Someone asked me what the nuggets of wisdom could be extracted from this exercise. One is that it is virtually impossible for numerate and innumerate people to have a meaningful conversation.
The points I raised in the Manifesto are very difficult to discuss with an innumerate audience, and the readers of this blog are, for the most part, very innumerate. That’s not an insult; its just what is.
Innumeracy is to data as illiteracy is to writing. There simply is no way to understand the world without a basic understanding of statistics. The reason is that most of us, especially women, tend to form a mental map of reality based on personal experience. We assume that because we personally are a certain way, or those we know are a certain way, that people in general are that way. The problem is that while only one parameter is required to describe an individual thing, person, or situation, multiple parameters are required to describe things, people and situations in general. I may be 6 feet tall, but white American adult males in general have a mean height of 5’10” with a standard deviation of 3 inches. This is gibberish to the innumerate.
Look over the comments and count the number of times someone refuted one of my generalizations with a personal story about themselves or an individual person they read about. They actually think they are making a meaningful point. They are not. The same goes for cherry picking a single study to refute a point.
We’re not having the same conversation.
Probably the biggest nugget of wisdom we can get out of this blog post is to see spiritual bypassing in action.
One of Mary’s consistent themes is that the most important relationship you have is not with your lover or children or even yourself; its with reality. You can throw up as many ad hominem attacks, exceptions to the rule, non sequiturs, etc. as you please but if you survey the literature, and filter our studies that have serious flaws in their sampling or analysis, you will find that every point I have made is true.
I attempted to shine a bit of reality into an area where a lot of brainwashing has been going on for a long time. I’m not surprised I got the backlash. Once we filter out opposing responses based in innumeracy, we are left with opposing responses based on spiritual bypassing.
Men have a very legitimate reason to be angry. Saying that we are all one and we should put aside our differences and go forward in a spirit of unity in our dual masculine/feminine nature is deliberately sidestepping the issue. It does not matter if we are spiritual beings having a human experience. The guy who just lost everything in state sanctioned divorce theft, or the guy who just got ordered by the court of pay child support for a kid who is not his has a legitimate beef. Let’s not sweep that under the rug with all kinds of happy spiritual talk.
John, what is it you want from women? Apologies? They have been given. Fairness? You have to give it to get it. Women have also been damaged, so what? We have ALL been damaged by each other, whether opposite gender or not. As long as you hold onto your anger and desire for revenge? control? no thing will change in your life.
Using “numeracy” and “innumeracy” is a fancy way of saying statistical analysis. Here are some quotes that describe statistics pretty well:
“Statistics are the triumph of the quantitative method, and the quantitative method is the victory of sterility and death” ~ Hilaire Belloc
“Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.” ~ Evan Esar
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent’s point.
The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
So hide behind them if you like, some of the rest of us are moving forward.
Mary Allen, grab some balls and leave this wussie already..
One would think by reading your replies is that you personally have done research in the areas that you speak of. But, you just picked the stuff off the web that someone else has done.
7 Articles concerning female genital cutting and circumcision, both from Wikipedia:
(www.nci.nih.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm)
http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator
From a popular men’s right blogger:
http://www.angryharry.com/esIstheTrainingofWomenDoctorsAWaste.htm
My god man, this does not require being a genuis. Most of learned to do this in elementary school.
The points I raised in the Manifesto are very difficult to discuss with an innumerate audience, and the readers of this blog are, for the most part, very innumerate. That’s not an insult; its just what is.
C’mon John, your sources include http://www.angryharry.com, Wikipedia & a host of other www’s.
You are again perpetrating fraud by trying to pass yourself off as some research king who the average person cannot understand when you have done nothing but post www’s & other reearchers data to back up your own opinions.
We all learned to do that before elementary school. It does not require great intelligence, abstract thinking or a brilliant mind.
Talking down to everybody as if they are unable to understand your great “research” abilities is a joke.
Look over the comments and count the number of times someone refuted one of my generalizations with a personal story about themselves or an individual person they read about. They actually think they are making a meaningful point. They are not. The same goes for cherry picking a single study to refute a point.
If you notice with John, there is no discussion or attempt to getting people to understand. He comes in & insults everybody & insinuates that no one has the intelligence to understand his brilliant thinking & research skills…then leaves.
And wonders why no one is getting it.
Oh the burden of the the great communicator.
I really see how Geri, and so many others feel that respect, kindness and courtesy isn’t flowing both ways. As John and I took some time tonight (we met actually 7 years ago today)…I really took all your words to heart. First to start, the Manifesto isn’t kind, per se. We’ve said many times, it was mean to be pointed.
And, as much as I’ve been doing my best to be respectful and honoring of everyone’s posts in commenting, it has been challenging to not feel the many personal attacks, on me — and toward my husband. I’m aware of at least two audiences listening. If I’m too direct, I’m patronizing and controlling. If I’m too connecting and empathetic, I’m being judged as a pushover without clear boundaries — and weak. Wish I knew the perfect way to please everyone… it’s a clear “no win” for me.
I sincerely apologize to those who’ve felt patronized or minimized by any of my comments (or John’s). I can see how my words could easily be taken as insulting or demeaning. I recognize in all of this…each of us is a human being. Complete with our own programming, conditioning, desires, wounds, beliefs, emotions, ego, vulnerabilities, spirits, perspectives and personalities. That goes for me and John too.
I sincerely want each person here to know I do care. And, I get that may not happen with a single comment. And I’d like you try to separate me and John from the Manifesto. The Manifesto is its own thing. We’re still people over here.
You’ve all been pretty rough on John. Perhaps, much deserved. And, he’s still a human being with feelers like the rest of us.
Also understand how direct my husband is, and how easy it is to interpret his words as cold, hard, callous and uncaring. He’s a “get-to-the-point-without-a-lot-of-fluff” kind of guy. As one my girlfriend has said, “I think a lot of people misunderstand John.” Empathy isn’t his top skill, as most of you have noticed. And, he’s working on it. This stream IS an opportunity to flex those muscles, for him. He’s heard you. Give him an opportunity to meet you….moving forward. Show him what it’s like to interact with a kind, conscious, spiritual person.
Part of my reason for posting the Manifesto is because John is actually pretty good at helping people understand things. There is a group that is only interested in digging in their heels and their own views, and nothing we can say here will make a difference. There is another group who really gets what John is speaking about, and are curious to learn something new (or how John holds his own).
And, there are those who sincerely want to understand, but don’t get all the statistic speak, and would like it translated in a way that isn’t shoved down their throat or too cryptic. Totally get that, because that was me. We all need to ultimately come to our own, most informed, conclusions. Most aren’t aware of how men have been harmed by women. That’s the main purpose of the manifesto… for each to simply acknowledge for a moment what it might be like, at times, to be a man.
Hopefully, everyone reading this stream will walk away with a new understand of what the other is saying… and we can begin the coming together now. (Even if it hasn’t been clearly evident before.)
The same goes for cherry picking a single study to refute a point.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I not only question the provenance of the websites he references, but the books as well, and this is not ad hominem. We’re relying on these sources to supply reliable data and analysis. The Manifesto has the feel of being cobbled together by studies and opinion that fit the conclusion intended. That is only a general impression; I’m not trying to debunk any point by it. I could probably make any argument I ever intended, backed by self-published or specialty published literature. It boils down to whether there is any reputability to them, how well they have been reviewed, etc.
(BTW, I would like to specifically request a response from John to that point.)
Mary says:
“Everyone who has posted has added something, if only to capture the extreme emotions and pain felt by the harms between genders.”
Many of the points John makes are not harms by woman against man; they are by society (as architected primary by men) against men. This is one of the big disconnects I find grating in this whole discussion. Feminism actually discusses this type of victimization by society against both genders (and there is a vast literature on it). How do you respond to this? Have you read anything about it?
(I would like to specifically request a response to this.)
The “feminism” listing at Wikipedia begins like this:
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women’s rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men’s liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are “person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism.”[4]
As I’ve said before, if it weren’t for feminism and the women’s movement, there would be no men’s movement; there would be no social gender role awareness. The limited view some people have of feminism is due simply to a cursory and ignorant perspective. For them, feminism is simply a way to subjugate or blame men; they haven’t got a clue that there is more to it than that.
If the object here is conscious awareness, then you have an obligation to appreciate feminism for supplying the conscious awareness of gender roles and how they can harm both men and women. I’m quite sure it will be nearly impossible, due to preconceived notions (and this unfortunately probably includes John) to wrap their minds around the fact that we all owe a certain gratitude to feminism, but I believe that is in fact the case.
Part of my reason for posting the Manifesto is because John is actually pretty good at helping people understand things. There is a group that is only interested in digging in their heels and their own views, and nothing we can say here will make a difference. There is another group who really gets what John is speaking about, and are curious to learn something new (or how John holds his own).
Remember Mary, this is a two-way street. It’s no good to emphasize the need to remain flexible without John making a similar effort, which to date he hasn’t done, as far as I can see. He’s demonstrated no openness to discussion whatsoever; instead he’s become defensive, closed, and either insists that opposing arguments are in denial or unable to perceive the truths he asserts, whether solidly based or not. That is simply not going to fly, and it’s fundamentally disrespectful to the readers here. I you and John can’t admit that, then there’s really no point continuing.
This is not an apology.
I sincerely apologize to those who’ve felt patronized or minimized by any of my comments (or John’s).
Okay. let me give you one…Mary, I sincerely apologize that you & your husband have felt personally attacked.
it has been challenging to not feel the many personal attacks, on me — and toward my husband.
How did my apology feel? What did my apology really say?
The bottom line is..we are capable of recognizing anger, judgement, superiority, patronization & the host of other traits that you two have exhibited during your replies. To tell us it is not intentional & is merely our perception is insulting & dishonest.
As far as John being misunderstood, I would like to think that. But John’s form of “discussion” is congruent with the manifesto, as is yours, to ask us to separate them is unrealistic….especially now.
Right on cue, after my comment about numeracy, out came the usual quips about lies, damn lies and statistics. Everyone like to quote Mark Twain on this subject.
I’d like to clarify what I was trying to communicate in my comment about numeracy.
I’m not talking about the data itself. I agree that there are all sorts of ways to fudge data. I’m talking about the importance of statistical thinking in regards to understanding the world. We see this sort of misunderstanding all the time, often by high-level policy makers who should know better. And these misunderstandings often cause us to keep working at policies that are clearly failing.
Let me give you and example. George Bush and Ted Kennedy worked together to enact the No Child Left Behind program, the single greatest intrusion of federal power into what used to be a highly locally run education system. With much fanfare George and Ted announced that the program had succeeded in reducing the odious black-white gap in test scores. They proudly noted that scores for both whites and blacks had gone up and that the gap between the scores had been significantly shrunk. All true. As a result they claimed that blacks had closed the gap in performance on standardized tests. Not true. This is where innumeracy comes in. In standard deviation units the gap had not changed at all. NCLB had incentivized the schools to dumb down the tests. Everybody got better scores but no one moved relative to one another. This is a trillion dollar federal program and we are basing its performance on an elementary error in reasoning. I’m not arguing for or against NCLB; I’m pointing out how basic innumeracy can cause us to do stupid things.
Let’s take another example. I meet an alien from outer space that has just landed here to study humans. I offer to help him. I explain that humans come in two types, male and female and that males are generally taller than females. I explain that I am male and that I’m 5’11” tall. I take him into a room and introduce him to a woman that is 6’3″ tall. He refutes my earlier statement that men are generally taller than women. This is reasonable because I failed to explain to him that I am in the middle of the male distribution while the WNBA player I just introduced him to is five sigma out on the female distribution. She is an extreme outlier. I then bring in a group of men, all of about average height, and I bring in the rest of the WNBA team, all extremely tall. The alien again refutes my statement that men are generally taller than women. I apologize again and explain that I failed to tell him that the males were sampled from the middle of their height distribution while the females were sampled form the extreme right-hand tip of their height distribution. Now the alien gets it.
So when we comment that attempt to refute generalizations with specific instances to the contrary, we are making the the same type of basic error in reasoning as the alien. Many of the comments made in this blog post attempt to refute generalizations I made in the Manifesto with individual instances to the contrary. I’m not saying your examples are not true. I’m just saying you can’t use it to refute my generalizations.
Some commenters have asked me what I want out of this blog post.
I don’t want an apology. I want you to see Arjuna’s Manifesto in a different light. I am not arguing for minute that some men have not wronged some women in the past, or that some do not continue to do so now. I’m not condoning the treatment of women in hellholes like the Middle East.
I want you to see how insulting and ridiculous it is to ask all men to apologize for the actions of a few men long ago. This is exactly what Arjuna’s Manifesto asks us to do. So I wrote this manifesto with the same structure but without Arjuna’s nauseating, drippy, weepy style, simply asking all women to apologize for the actions of some women. And I got a lot of backlash for that. Good. This is what I want you to feel.
But the more important point of this blog post was to get people to question their assumptions about reality. Women have been so programed to see themselves as victims and men as oppressors that many of them cannot accept the opposing point of view. I want you to see that there is a different reality.
Well see John…if the manifesto (and your replies) had been written in this new tone of yours, I maybe would have taken to the discussion differently.
And truthfully, I believe that women no longer play into the victim mentality. I (and most of the women I know) personally gave it up some time ago as we were able to see the true intention of it.
If we live alone with our cats it is because we are working our own inner self and CHOOSE to. Not because we are victims of our own inner bitch. Believe it or not, after years of caretaking & raising a family, living with my cat & being able to put my needs & wants first, is beyond divine.
It is my reward, not my punishment.
Queen, I couldn’t agree more. It sure seems, the vast majority of women no longer play into the victim mentality. I see women more empowered than ever, to start businesses, to express themselves and even to CHOOSE to live alone with their cat or dog — and LOVE life all the more. Personally, I admire this tremendously :)) (I too know MANY women who have consciously chosen this path, and hold zero animosity to men).
There are still a few vocal ones that wave the “victim flag” and using John’s metaphor… confusing the alien masses, which are typically behind in recognizing reality as it really is.
Thank you Queen for your comments here. SO appreciate this perspective!
John, the trouble is that you can make a perfectly sound statistical analysis and still not come to a conclusion that corresponds to a truth about reality.
Let’s take one point from the manifesto, the preponderance of high achieving male scientists. Though basic addition can tell you there have been more recognized male geniuses than women, by doing so you make the unfounded assumption that men and women have striven on a level playing field. We know from examples (anecdotes) like that of Rosalind Franklin, who was essentially shut out from recognition, that women have been sidelined by their gender. Instances like this are anecdote, of course, but it does imply that we should give thought to this. Examples (again anecdote) like Marie Curie (double Nobel) and Barbara McClintock show us that women are at least capable of high achievement.
Your error boils down to not taking all variables into consideration. You’re making an unsupported assumption that male higher achievement is caused by male superiority in those fields and not other factors. Your overall argument is unsound.
In reply you may revisit your IQ measurements, but as Mint E Fresh pointed out (and as is true), there has never been an accepted definition of just what intelligence is. IQ tests measure how well someone takes a test. A normal distribution by itself doesn’t tell you much of significance. I could measure one’s ability to, say, make a creamy and delicious omelette and derive a normal dist too.
Hunt: You demonstrate your flawed feminist perspecitive in your analysis of intelligence.
Starting from woman-good, man-bad you summise that any difference showing males at the top of a spectrum must be due to man-bad and not actual ability.
I notice that you don’t ascribe a preponderance of males at the bottom to them being discriminated against. Or maybe you would – also using man-bad. “Men are just stoopid”, perhaps.
Your assumption that female high achievers are just not recoginsed is demonstated as false by your very next statement: “Marie Curie (double Nobel)”.
Marie was the only female in the team of scientists who were researching radioactivity. The whole group recieved nobel prizes but she was the only one most people know about … BECAUSE she was female.
She recieved the second nobel prize by herself because all the other researchers had died by then – they were awarded posthumous ones.
Nobody had said that women can’t be smart. Nobody has said that women can’t be high achievers. It’s just that at the very point of the graph there are more males.
Rather than being ignored, female high achievers are given a much greater spotlight than males. That’s not oppression.
Would you say that non-blacks who run under 10 seconds are just “not recognised” or oppressed? No. At the very point of the normal curve every genetic component gives you a tiny edge and it takes you from 3rd to first. And first is the only one remembered.
Just an extention on giving women more praise than men for the same job:
We have a whole separate sports field for women. WOMENS sports.
If we truly treated the sexes as equal we’d have one sports field. The woman who could run the 100m in 10.49 (current womens WR) would have the same number of gold medals as the man – none.
If the 17th person to sail around the world is a man – we don’t hear about him, but if he’s a woman she’s written up in the history books.
I’m guessing from the woman-good man-bad view this will be interpreted as women not having the opportunity to be first, or that women being prevented from being first.
I’m a white guy, and I used to be in athletics as a youth. I knew that it would be almost impossible for me to stand on the winners dias at the olympics for 100m.
I was okay with that. I trained anyway, I came second in my state for 100m and first in high jump.
I also knew that even though I could jump higher than the womens world record holder, she would recieve the medal and not me. Even though we were doing the same work. I was okay with that too.
Most men are okay with giving women more support and encouragment than men. We like (most) women.
Before the man-bad woman-good start saying that this is simply bad men patronising women. I’ve met lots of women who support men in areas that they feel they have greater ability. My wife spell and grammer checks the papers I write. She’s better at it than me and helps me through love.
What rankles people is that in return for their generosity they get condemned and blamed for not being generous enough. The only gender group that does this is feminism.
Starting from woman-good, man-bad you summise that any difference showing males at the top of a spectrum must be due to man-bad and not actual ability.
Actually, this is not what I’m saying, but first let me backtrack and correct something I said earlier:
John, the trouble is that you can make a perfectly sound statistical analysis and still not come to a conclusion that corresponds to a truth about reality.
This is not true either. What I meant to say is that a person can make a valid argument and yet not arrive at any kind of truth. A valid argument is one that makes no logical errors, but may or may not begin with truthful assumptions. A sound argument is a valid argument that begins with true premises. It is impossible for a sound argument to arrive at wrong conclusions.
What I have been trying to say is that John can make valid arguments beginning with wrong assumptions and arrive at wrong conclusions, and I believe he has.
Now, getting back to V from A’s reply, no I’m not making that statement. I’m saying that John has not proven his case because his argument is not sound. Basically, he’s made the common error of assuming correlation implies causation. It doesn’t. Gender may be correlated to achievement, but it is not necessarily a causal relationship. Recognizing this also doesn’t necessarily imply that the relationship is not causal either (V from A’s mistake above). It simply means you haven’t proven your case.
Let me give an example. Say we’re back in the 50’s and you’re a medical researcher who suspects that alcohol causes lung cancer. You do a rigorous study and, sure enough, alcohol consumption correlates strongly to lung cancer. Have you proven that alcohol causes lung cancer? No, you have not. You have only shown a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship. Analogously, John would stop here and declare definitively that alcohol causes lung cancer, but he’s not necessarily right. He may be right, but at this point it would be blind luck if he were. let’s say that alcohol consumption correlated almost exactly with heavy smoking, and that it is smoking exclusively that causes lung cancer. John has duped himself into believing that alcohol causes cancer, when the real culprit is smoking.
This is exactly the error John is making in the Manifesto when he asserts that historical male achievement implies male intellectual superiority.
Your assumption that female high achievers are just not recoginsed is demonstated as false by your very next statement: “Marie Curie (double Nobel)”.
Remember, you have to be careful both attempting to show and debunk a point with anecdote. That’s the point John himself has been stressing. I was careful to point out that the Curie anecdote only shows that it is possible for a woman to achieve, but you’re attempting to use it to prove the general conclusion that there has been no repression of women scientists. So you’re definitely committing the statistical anecdote error.
Hunt:
I was careful to point out that the Curie anecdote only shows that it is possible for a woman to achieve, but you’re attempting to use it to prove the general conclusion that there has been no repression of women scientists.
Nope, I was using it to demonstrate thet women scientists are lauded far and above men scientists. You had used her as an example of a high flying women in a paragraph about women getting less recognition.
It seems to me that John (like most scientists) does not start out with assumptions but with observations. There are more recognised male geniuses than female. I don’t think that’s in dispute.
The argumental error you make here is asking your opponents to prove a negative. To paraphrase; you say there are fewer women at the very top of intellect due to discimination. You provide no evidence and say prove me wrong.
If you suggest that this is because of discrimination and not number, then it is up to you to demonstrate that. It is you that is making the assumption.
John and I are very aware that correlation does not prove causation. But it seems to be you that makes the errors in that area.
Fewer women at the very top does not prove discrimination. I thought I made that point with the athletics.
The colour of skin correlates wonderfully with speed. Actually that’s incorrect; speed correlates wonderfully with skin colour. But it is the larger amount of fast-twitch muscle found in the genetic descendants of north-east africa that allow the greater ability. And it is that genetics that causes the skin colour.
The increased number of males at the top and the bottom of the intellect range is very likely to do with the Y chromosome.
It is the chromosome that shows the most recent evolution and is also the only chromosome that is not mellowed through recombination. The X chromosome is the amalgam of every X chromosome from both genders of every one of your ancestors. It is a consensus opinion.
The Y chromosome, on the other hand, is a straight 1 for 1 copy of your dad’s. Anyone from your mother’s side has no say in the matter.
Its purpose is to go along the rest of the DNA tweaking settings here are there. Let’s make this a bit taller, add some muscle mass here. Let’s make him aroused by redheads. And lets increase his brain volume by 15%. And let’s mess with the grey matter white matter ratios.
It is this chromosome that produces extreems of behaviour. Sometimes it’s awful and we lock them up. Other times it’s great and we give them a prize.
So, yes. I think it’s safe to assume from the observations that gender may have somthing to do with the extremes of ability.
Hunt: My last post reads as a bit aggresive. I didn’t mean it to. Sorry.
(it’s right though)
I didn’t think it was overly aggressive, but you still have it wrong that I’m trying to prove what you say I’m trying to prove. I think it is likely that discrimination has produced a fewer achieving women, but the only thing I set myself to do was to show that John hasn’t proven his case.
BTW, you seem to portray the Y chromosome as some kind of supercharged elixir that confers on its holder greater powers, when in fact the Y chromosome is once of the weaker links in human genetic inheritance. It is more subject to error and mutation. Its uniqueness denies men the ability to have redundant X gene information. The Y chromosome is a rather bad way to determine sex selection, and your dramatic portrayal verges on pseudoscience.
These are topics where we are skirting the boundary of scientific conjecture. To give one example, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you also believe in race differences in IQ (to add even more controversy to this discussion). You probably also know about the Flynn Effect, which has determined that race IQ appears to increase as an absolutely measured metric through time, which casts great doubt on the validity of IQ testing.
The moral is that we simply don’t know enough about these things to draw definite conclusions at this time.
John wrote:
“It does not matter if we are spiritual beings having a human experience.”
It’s the only thing that matters.
No wonder we don’t agree on anything.
Hunt,
In your numerous comments you raise a lot of good points and I’d like to address them, but first I’d like to address your last point about intellectual equality, because in this explanation I hope I can address a lot of the other items in the Manifesto also. Please forgive the length of this response as there is not way to deal with this complex subject briefly.
The sacred cows of feminism are reproductive freedom, including abortion, and discrimination. With regard to discrimination there is overt discrimination, which has largely been eliminated in our society, and the type of discrimination feminists refuse to let go of: covert discrimination, the so called glass ceiling. My basic argument is that the impossibility of numerical parity at the top of society is the inevitable result of the inborn intellectual inequality of the sexes, for which there is no solution except quotas and reverse discrimination, which cause harm to society.
In an earlier comment I explained that, purely as an artifact of the slight difference in the mean and standard deviations of the male and female IQ distributions, men are greatly over-represented at the top of the human range of intelligence. As a species that does battle with brains this means that men will always be the majority in any position that carries status. People in general want status and the clever get what they want. That is not fair but that is how it is.
You state that I base my claim of male intellectual superiority on the fact that very few women have made significant contributions to the arts and sciences over the course of history. You misunderstand me. I am not saying that because few women have contributed to human knowledge, they must therefore be less intelligent. I’m saying that the paucity of women in the ranks of high achievers is parsimoniously explained by the fact that as you go further and further up the scale of human intelligence, the number of people you can find at that level of intelligence drops off much faster for women than for men, eventually leaving only men at the top. This is simply because the male and female IQ distributions have slightly different means and variances. It’s not good, its not bad, it’s just math.
Let’s deal with objections for a minute. If an objection pops into your mind so easily, might researchers in the field of psychometrics, who have studied this stuff for decades, and staked their professional reputations on the quality of their papers, not have also thought of your objection? Case in point: You counter my assertion by bringing up the usual suspects, Roselyn Franklin, Marie Curie, etc. I have seen this male-female IQ debated many times and this is always the opening objection, one that is easily dispensed with. Please re-read my earlier comment regarding numeracy. The reason I got so pedantic about numeracy was to try to head off exactly these types of objections that amount to little more than squid ink thrown into the water to prevent us from thinking clearly about this impotent issue. Were Franklin and Curie brilliant women? Of course. Are there brilliant women out there today? Of course. I’m not debating that. But using these examples cherry picked from the extreme right hand end of the bell curve is exactly the same logic as in the alien studying humans example. Are there 6’4” women out there? Yes. Not many, but yes, there are some. But I can’t point to a 6’4” woman and use that example to disprove the statement that men are taller than women in general.
Let me deal with some other common objections so you don’t throw yet more squid ink into the water. I’m not going to discuss them here. Do the research yourself. They have all been debunked.
Intelligence tests are not valid for women because they were designed by men. They are biased.
Wrong. Test bias has been studied for decades and was long ago disproved.
Intelligence can’t be measured.
Wrong. Good test of intelligence measure a common parameter called Spearman’s g that correlates to one’s ability to learn and make use of new information and to independently expand on that information.
There is more to a person than intelligence. IQ is not everything.
True. But this is a straw man argument. Of course there is much more to a person than intelligence, but IQ is the single biggest thing you can win in the genetic lottery.
Intelligence does not matter.
Wrong. There is a huge amount of good quality research on this subject. IQ, while not the only thing, matters more than any other single parameter for determining life outcome.
Some slightly more sophisticated yet equally wrong objections include:
More girls take standardized tests so more of the bottom half of the female IQ distribution is being sampled, leading to higher scores for boys.
Wrong. Only a deltas in the mean or SD or both can be responsible for the exponential divergence of scores at the top end if the distribution of test scores. Sampling bias cannot explain this.
The Flynn effect (a favorite for those who think they are being clever) says everyone’s IQ is going up.
Yes, but the spread between populations remains the same.
Now that we have dealt with common objections, lets train our brains to think. We can’t move on here until I clear up this numeracy issue. I want to give you a feel for what a standard deviation is by giving you some examples of how much difference there is between groups in terms of standard deviation units. I’m not making any judgments about people here; I’m just trying to give you an intuitive feel for what a standard deviation is.
3 standard deviations: This is an immense, unbridgeable chasm. This means that the distributions have almost no overlap. Example: male vs. female upper body strength. For an average woman to be able to match the average level of male upper body strength she would have to cross three SD up the female distribution, and then another three SD up the slightly wider male distribution. The math says only one in many millions of women could be found with this level of upper body strength. For a woman to be able to match the UB strength of a typical firefighter, (male firefighters are generally at least 1SD above the male mean) she would have to climb yet another SD up the male distribution. There are probably less than a handful of women alive today that are this strong. This is why double standards are required to allow women to be hired into jobs like police, fire and military, where upper body strength is required.
2 standard deviations: Still a huge chasm. Example: male vs. female lower body strength. Only one in many thousands of women can match the lower body strength of an average man.
1.75 standard deviations: Still a really big gap. Example: male vs. female height. I don’t have to explain to you how much overlap there is in the distributions; you can see it for yourself. Next time you are walking around in a crowded place look at the height of the men vs. the women. That’s 1 3/4 SD.
1 standard deviation: Still a big gap. Example: the average difference in test scores between blacks and whites in the U.S. There is quite a bit of overlap between the distributions. About 16% of blacks perform at the average level of whites.
0.75 standard deviations: a moderate gap. Example: the average difference in test score between Hispanics and whites in the U.S. There is a lot of overlap between the distributions.
0.3 SD: the difference in average intelligence between men and women. It’s small, yet it is significant for reasons I’ll get into in a minute. So I’m NOT saying women are stupid. The distributions overlap almost entirely.
Now that you have a feel for numbers I’m using, let’s look at what we know now about intelligence as it relates to men and women.
Back in the nineteenth century the conventional wisdom was that men were more intelligent than women. Many men used this assumption to exclude women form high status positions. You had to be someone like Marie Curie to break through this barrier. Then came universal compulsory education and standardized testing. For the first time we have an unbiased sample of the whole population that we could test. Guess what they found? Girls score equally or better than boys. So we overturned the conventional wisdom.
There was one problem. We made the assumption that the difference between boys and girls reflects the difference between men and women. It was not until much later in the 20th century that we had large, representative samples of the male and female adult population to test. Getting an unbiased sample of adults to test is hard, but by the late 20th century this data became available. Guess what they found? Men from all countries and races score significantly higher on all standardized tests.
Why the paradox? Simple. Boys vs. girls is not the same as men vs. women. Girls are genetically designed to physically and mentally mature faster than boys. A closer look at the data shows that girls slightly lead boys in intelligence and maturity from infancy through pre-teen, and then pull significantly ahead of boys as they mature several years earlier. This is why girls universally do better in school (including places like the Middle East where they are heavily discriminated against). This is also why mixed sex education is so crippling for boys, and why the current push for earlier and earlier education cripples boys even more. This is also why feminists furiously resist single sex education. They know that if boys were educated on their time table rather than girls time table that boys would regain the edge they once had in education.
Then the tables turn. Boys begin to physically and mentally mature in their mid to late teens and continue to mature through their mid twenties. It takes far longer for human males to mature than females. It’s just biology. Boys brains grow 15% larger than those of girls. The delay in maturity keeps boys brains plastic much longer than those of girls, enabling them to continue learning at the fast rate of a child longer than girls. Correspondingly, boys scores on standardized tests shoot way ahead of girls. By the late teens boys are 3-5 IQ points more intelligent than girls. Some researchers think this lead may open up to as much as 8 IQ points by the age of 30. This lead includes both math and verbal – boys math ability is not balanced by girls verbal ability. Boys blow away girls on both. On all standardized test men score much higher on math and significantly higher on verbal sections.
But by the time boys mature the damage is done. After years of suffering through a feminized education system, and just as they are developing the brainpower to succeed in school, boys just want out. They hate school. That is largely why they are opting not to attend college in droves. This is the toxic effect of feminism on education. We will pay for this as a nation as our prosperity declines. A nation that does not educate its smartest citizens is no match for one that does, whether on the field of battle or business.
So if the difference between men and women is so small, how can I claim that it is responsible for the fact that 98% of all significant advances in the arts and sciences wince the beginning of recorded history are due to differences in intelligence between men and women? Surely this proves that discrimination must be at work. Good question.
The reason why this is such a hard thing for the innumerate to grasp is precisely because the average difference between men and women is so small. If you are surrounded by average people on a daily basis, as most of us are, it is very hard to notice the intellectual difference between men and women. We are interested in different things but seem equally intelligent. The difference only becomes noticeable as you begin hanging out with brighter and brighter people. This is why I say it is impossible to understand how the world works if you are innumerate. So back to class we go:
Say I have two jars of marbles, each containing 1000 marbles, with one set red and the other green. And say I measure the diameter of all the marbles in each jar. I find that the red ones are ever so slightly larger than the green ones. In fact, the difference is so small that I can’t see it; I need a precision micrometer to measure it. Now suppose also that I find that the standard deviation of each set of marbles is very large. In other words the variability if the marbles in each jar is huge compared to the difference in average size between the red and green marbles. Now suppose I dump both jars of marbles into a machine that sorts them by size and spits out only the 10 largest marbles. To my surprise I find that almost all the marbles selected are red. Why? Because it is a law of statistics that a very slight difference in the average of two populations or a very slight difference in the variability of two populations results is a huge disparity at the extremes. If I made the average size of the two sets of marbles the same and kept the variability different I would get the same effect, but with maybe a few more green marbles. Likewise if I made the means different and kept the variability the same.
This is exactly what happens with the intelligence of men and women. The male mean is, as I explained above, slightly larger and the male variability is larger (as it is with almost all other parameters describing males). Identifying brilliant people is just like selecting the biggest marbles. Men will, for purely mathematical reasons, dominate at the top. At the bottom men and women are about equally represented because the means and SD constructively reinforce at the top of the distribution but cancel each other out at the bottom of the distribution.
How big is the difference as you go up the range of human intelligence? Big. More than enough to account for the difference in historical achievement between men and women.
John on July 4, 201112:53 pm
“numerical parity at the top of society is the inevitable result of the inborn intellectual inequality of the sexes”
And of course has nothing to do with the lack of opportunities for education or freedom to compete in the workplace which have been historically male dominated due to your own prejudices.
” Of course there is much more to a person than intelligence, but IQ is the single biggest thing you can win in the genetic lottery.”
True, but IQ is not solely a product of genes, it is the product of experience, education as well. For example, how well would the most brilliant person (male or female) do on current IQ tests if they could not read? Reading was a skill the church withheld from women (and the general public) for many years, as it was felt that they were not capable of understanding, (and of course they might think for themselves .. God forbid!) This is an awful simplification used to substantiate your claims of superiority.
I find it interesting that this document (the Manifesto) is supposed to be an apology from women to men for historical and cultural slights and abuses, yet every answer John has given has reinforced the female view of abusive, power-hungry, predatory males who value them only for their ability to reflect well on the male, their ability to produce children and as servants to take care of the needs and desires of the males. I find all of these responses to be very arrogant, and in the long run self defeating. As for the whining about the boys abused by the feminized school system … perhaps the goal is actually to get them to FEEL rather than just THINK. BOTH are required for a sound, successful, enjoyable life. There’s still a long long way to go on this!
That abuses have taken place on both sides .. GIVEN.
Intelligence alone or empathy alone are not sufficient for a successful human experience. Success in this is not defined as simply material success, or acquisition of power. Historically we have erred by valuing one over the other, almost to exclusion, and that ‘wrong’ has created much that is good, and much that is bad. In my mind success is defined more as achieving a balance of the two. However, what we resist persists, so as long as either side refuses to let go of the past hurts and slights, nothing will change.
It is difficult to express completely complete ideas in a blog, the way one could do in a verbal conversation. Body language, facial expression, all those would be taken into account in a face to face meeting, but are not available in writing. The effort to explain one’s perspective can become an overwhelming block of text that simply feels like blah blah blah after a while, though I know you were trying to communicate clearly John. What I would ask is that you set aside your personal grudges and slights, and feel into what you’ve written. It is heartless. Therein is the problem.
I thank you for the mental and emotional exercise this blog has provided. All in all, the bottom line for me in reading this treatise, John, is this: Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
Mulling this over a little more …
Accepting that historically damage has been done to both genders, allowing ourselves to forgive those excesses will allow us to move forward. Clinging to the perceived historical abuses only keeps us fixed in this moment, this disparity, this awful disconnection. And choosing to release that history, to reconnect with our opposites in gender and perspective, is something we can only do individually. We cannot do it for anyone else, nor for our whole gender. As that is the case, this Manifesto has at least brought the issues to the light, for consideration by each one of us, and then to choose, hopefully what is for our highest good.
John,
Thanks for your lengthy reply, the details of which I will file at the back of my mind. You spin a good yarn, but your story is not enough to make me concede anything. Fortunately for me, my position is analogous to the attorney for the defense, while you are prosecuting this case. I need only raise enough question that you have not proven your case beyond reasonable doubt, and I essentially win. This doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong; it only means that you will have to try your case at some later date, which fortunately in science you are always allowed to do.
The results you are resting your case on are very recent, since up to the end of the 20th century it was general consensus that there was no significant difference in gender IQ measurements. From what I can determine, the difference in gender IQ variance comes from one study that found twice the number of males in any one segment of the upper or lower bell curve. A double frequency of male geniuses is hardly enough to explain the yawning gap in historical male/female achievement. This alone should suggest that there are other factors at work.
A wider curve of male achievement could also be easily explained by social factors, like the possibility that men are more subject to either intellectual and personal reinforcement or personal humiliation, as you seem to think has been happening due to female intrusion into education. In other words, this could be explained by nurture, not nature.
I’m not just being a wet blanket here. You simply can’t make the kinds of positive assertions you have made, based on very dubious assumptions, and expect a free pass. Parsimony and “Occam’s Razor” are notoriously unreliable general philosophies upon which to base a theory, especially one in a domain including human psychology, social and biological interaction. In fact, we might reject the simplest explanation out of hand.
“Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong”
H. L. Mencken
I don’t want to engage in the logical error of personal attack (ad hom) but throughout these comments you show signs of “contrarian syndrome,” a diagnosis I just invented, but noteworthy on many blogs. That is, you mistake heated opposition to your controversial claims as signs that you are actually on the “right track.” Somehow, the fact that many people reject your claims translates, for you, into the impression that you are more likely to be correct than the opposite. You should really try to break yourself of it because it’s actually quite a rotten intellectual philosophy and serves more to close your mind than anything else.
I could go on forever regarding the whole intelligence issue and never change anyone’s mind. The male dominance at the upper end of the distribution is settled knowledge. The data from brain studies and genetics is pouring in fast. In a few more decades informed people won’t be debating this any more. The uninformed and innumerate, who can’t understand that the glass ceiling is an illusion, will still be trying to circumvent human nature, and suffering the unintended consequences.
And we come full circle to “I am right and you are wrong.” It’s actually becoming quite funny to me. I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, but it is my truth. I no longer feel the need to correct you in any way, John. You are perfectly who you are until you decide to be different, as are we all.
Oh and … thanks for all the fish! 😉
“I could go on forever regarding the whole intelligence issue and never change anyone’s mind.”
The reason you could do this is there is no definitive conclusion to be had at this time. If there was, even it were a general consensus, you might have some polemical leverage, but there isn’t. Your certainty is premature, and therefore suspect.
My suspicion is we are never going to arrive at your conclusion, based on my impression that “intelligence” or mental talents will eventually be discovered to be more multifarious than can be statistically ranked in any order as per gender or race. And we will discover the folly of even making the attempt, as we discovered the folly in eugenics.
So I can’t wish you luck, John, but thanks for all the fish.
Actually Hunt and Salty, you could just read or listen to some interviews with transexuals.
If you really want to know the truth (and I don’t suspect for one minute that you do) listen to the people who have viewed life from both sides.
Even women who just took testosterone as a performance enhancing drug report large mental effects.
I expect that you know what the men on estrogen and women on testosterone report, so I won’t write it here.
Have fun in your denial, and thanks for the cheese.
Dear ladies,
Thank you for honoring us men.
Still, I refuse to marry any one of you.
Nothing personal, it’s just business.
MGTOW
Thank god, mgtow, cuz I refuse to marry any one of you men. Nothing personal, it’s just business. I would never marry a man. And no, I’m not lesbian. Why? Because I am too strong, too smart, too beautiful and make more money than 90-something percent of you.
It’s hard to take feminists seriously when they talk about things like “my reality” and “your truth”. They are simply insane.
There is neither expression of reailty, nor the clear cognition of reality in either manifesto.
Both manifestos are an expression of subjective, relativist and relational delusions of seperation. Of arbitrary divisions starting with psyche. Which is a the dualistic seperation of all existance as a reflection of my self. Or ego. Or self identity. Or self image.
There is neither your nor my self. Nor other, nor unity. Unity requires other or division. There is nothing to unify, as nothing is seperate.
The arbitrary division of consciousness based on the personal script of self, in this case expressed as gendered consciousness is false.
The congition of reailty is grounded in truth. Your/My truth and thus reailty is false. There is no my in reality. Thought can give expression to it as a movement through impermanece. But can never capture it. Never make it into a belonging. Into l, me or mine.
The exploration of psyche (self-referential separation), particularly the gender narrative is useful, if not integral to dis-abusing one self of itself and the mytiad delusions which keep consciousness (thought) mired in reflections of illusion. As a sort of path, to the other side, into the realm of no other. No seperation. No unity. Into recognition of where one already is, namely of ONE.
Julia, did you juat admit to not marrying because you “make more money than 90-something percent of you“.
Are you saying the reason women marry men is for the money they can extract from them?
Are you calling married women prostitutes?
And because you said you will not marry a man because you already have money; are you admitting you are a prostitute?!
“1. Divorce makes men – and particularly fathers – significantly richer.”
Ergo…
Marriage makes men poorer and women – and particularly mothers – significantly richer.
“Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman’s income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.”
This is why marriage is attractive to women and highly recommended for them. Not so for men. A loss spoils is what happens when the provider is removed.
Incidentally, Mary’s manifesto was far too focused on men’s utility to women, in the form of provision and protection, to be anything short of subconscious projection of self interest.
“2. Abrams, R., & Greaney, J. (1989). Report of the gender bias study of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
A 1989 study by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that in cases involving custody and visitation litigation, “The interests of fathers are given more weight than the interests of mothers and children.” (pp. 62-63).
But mothers still get the kids and use them to grab the stuff and chain and punish the man for breaking her dreams.
3.Chesler, P. (1991, 1986). Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
Phyllis Chesler interviewed 60 mothers involved in a custody dispute and found that fathers who contest custody are more likely than their wives to win (p. 65). In 82% of the disputed custody cases fathers achieved sole custody despite the fact that only 13% had been involved in child care activities prior to divorce (p. 79 tbl. 5). Moreover, 59% of fathers who won custody litigation had abused their wives, and 50% of fathers who obtained custody through private negotiations had abused their wives (p. 80 tbl. 6).
Translation, men dont care for their kids and abuse their wives. Shorter translation… Man BAD, Woman VICTIM.
4. It is not uncommon for defence lawyers (those defending the accused) to insinuate that a woman led the rapist to believe she consented. For example, they might exploit myths like;
A woman’s provocative appearance or behaviour was an invitation for consensual sexual intercourse.
A woman provoked a rape because she was drunk or because she was wearing a low cut dress, or accepted a lift in a car.
Alternatively they might argue that a woman’s word could not be trusted, by calling on myths such as:
Women lie about rape for their own vengeful or fraudulent ends;
Most reports of rape are false;
Women mean “yes” when they say “no”;
Women enjoy being raped and;
Women are prone to sexual fantasies or;
Men can’t be blamed for losing control in a confusion of sexual signals. http://www.brissc.org.au/resources/for/for_7.html
Translation… Men are rapists and that’s all they are.
5. According to a recent study by the American Prosecutors Research Institute, false rape allegations account for two to eight percent of all reported rapes. This low figure may shock many readers who have heard claims that over 40 percent of rape reports are false.
http://www.awolau.org/2010/04/05/myth-busters-false-rape-reports/
Again, men are rapists.
Apology accepted.
WTF? You are sick, twisted moron, VFA. It’s people like you and the way you think that are the reason why the world is so messed up.
“I love all the females posting about how angry this sounds.”
Ironically, they do not realise where the sound of anger is.
In reality they have no regard for reality, for they are ensconsed in the sounds of themselves.
The correct existential allegory for the gendered nature of delusion is;
1. Unconscious Feminine, and
2. Conscious Masculine.
They are both fundamentally flawed in thought, having no basis in logic or reason. They are really just ideations taking to the point of ideology.
The main flaws are;
1. The conscious masculine attempts to impose thought
2. The unconscious feminine imposes not thinking (instead feeling, going with the flow).
The strength and ultimately useful mental states of each are;
1. Clear thinking of reality(masculine)
2. Surrender or acceptance of reality (feminine).
The ultimate frame of reference being… Conscious acceptance (logical cognition) PLUS rational surrender (rationally going with the flow).
At which point all the pretentions (of gendered thought in this case) can be consciosuly surrendered. Released from the grasping delusions of self-identity/ego.
Self Identity = Ego. Tridently identifying with one’s reproductive biology as the basis of one’s gendered self is one of the most essential expressions of ego.
If one heavily identifies woth masculine/feminine, man/woman, they are in the dep bog of ego. Any reactions, particularly anger, point to that which energises or fuels self.
For those who are interested in truth, in reality, then forget self, forget other, forget you, yours, my, me and them. Forget your ego’s attachment to its identifications with the gonads.
Forget all that non sense about no thing.
Simply be and be simple. Let the thought, the clear, rational, logical thought move. Without grasping, clinging, attaching and forever trying to nail those thought down.
The illsuion isn’t in physics or perception. The illusion is the image constructed by thought in thought. Thought being a mere expression of physics, it is simply a transient movement. Through addiction to felt thoughts, the body has deceived thinking into believing in itself, in the mind, the soul, the spirit, the ego, consciousness.
Stop trying to elevate those thoughts above and beyond. There is no beyond, their is no transcendence. All thought is boundary. Thought = boundary = illusion.
Thought can be used, sby tripping away the falsehoods, in a process of elimination to leave in plain sight, what is already obviously there. Thought can be taken to its very edge and no further.
Accept This. You will have fight your self to do it, as that is what self is. It is the struggle with itself to fight off reality.
The whole thin appears as a paradox in a labrynth. That is just how it is. It will do its darnest to confound and confuse, for it must in order for they delude self to believe in its folly.
What you experience and think of as you is a mere script. A clinging to memory. A rejection of the transient and empty nature of being.
see the catch 22, Aus? women marry men to “extract” money from them? or because until relatively recently, historically speaking, the options were limited? not too long ago, being a wife (and mother) was ALL woman was “allowed” to offer society. were they prostitutes then?
i think all julia was saying is she has options, and having options, she sees no reason or need to get married, which has hardly been the case historically. i don’t think she was making a blanket statement, but your attempt to infer she’s a prostitute (for argument’s sake, I hope) because she is independently wealthy is certainly a low point here, not to mention illogical. why would she take money for sex or leverage sex if she’s independently wealthy? and you said married women are prostitutes (according to the “theory”), while julia says she’s not married, so again that doesn’t make sense.
“John, this unconscious manifesto is hardly the result of fact or logic, but of unconscious ego trying to hold on to control while mass consciousness shifts away from the destructive limitations of said egoic living.”
That is an expression of projected ego. Ego is conscious, including subconscious. It cannot be unconscious. There is no thoughtless thought.
“You are correct that your writing is unfeeling and seemingly of the mind. That’s why so many can’t relate. Not everyone is that closed off. Many people reading this have grown and expanded to step outside of clinging to mind only analysis.”
There is are no people. nor person that can ‘grow’ outside of ‘mind.’ For mind is what the person is, the net construction of clinging to thought. As in clinging to my thoughts, in my mind, of my person.
“Many people can read the same statistics and studies and come up with vastly different conclusions.”
There is only one truth and the differing interpretations are based on false thinking.
“This manifesto is the product of egoic mind fearing change of the status quo that has served its self-serving nature.”
Exactly. Mind = Ego = Person = Identity = Heart = Self. All of which are expressions of reality REJECTED. As your you calls it… fear. Such is the nature of your you.
“Having said that, I do have compassion for how you feel. I can see that you are feeling alienated and perhaps even disempowered. While you are trying to say this manifesto is pure logic and factual reasoning, no it isn’t. It’s all about how you FEEL.”
Projections of an egoicly mindful personage.
“It’s not logic and reason that motivates anyone to take pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) it’s feelings and emotions.”
Is it possible to act without motivation. Or motivation what the ego does to convince in itself as the ‘doer’ of actions. Is your you doing anything or is it all being done to you? Do you ‘take responsibility’ (egoic clinging) or are you merely responding/reacting.
“If you truly believe anything at all”
No belief is true. Belief is the antihesis of truth.
“it might help if you considered the possibility that you have completely alienated yourself from your feminine feeling aspects.”
The divisions along gendered ‘concsiousness’ of one existence are false. There is no division.
“What you are objecting to occurring in the social shifts you lament, are women embracing their masculine essences, and breaking free.”
There is no breaking free in society. Scoiety is a conditioned perceptual binding. A prison for thought. Captured in the script of mind, of self, of person. Society and person are boundaries. A person is merely a social fiction. Society isa conceptual fiction.
“There’s nothing to be afraid of.”
This is absolutely true, eccept when the self interupts, which is almost always.
“It may look a little off kilter as the adjustment takes place, but it would go much more smoothly”
Nothing is off kilter. Everything is perfectly is it is. Nothing ‘should’ be any different. Should is an expression of ego. There is nothing to change nor alter, when the ego is quiet.
“everyone individually and collectively”
All is one.
“if we didn’t resist this natural urge for change, growth, and integration, but rather embraced and supported it.”
There is nothing to change or grow or direct or integrate. All is already perfectly being. The ‘impulse’ is the ambitious expression of the ego, in all its grandiose, self serving delusional calls and motivation to action. As if it can act of its own volition. As if it were somehow free, independant. When in truth, in reality, in fact it, like every thing, simply conditional. Blown about by the winds of causation.
“Embracing and supporting, true masculine qualities.” There are no true masculine, nor feminine qualities. They are deluded reflection of illusion (thoughts).
“Mature masculine qualities.”
Hmmmmm. Those which serve others. This narrative of masculinity is possible the worst of all conditioned scripts to programs us to keep ourselves pinned down.
No right is taken or fought for. All rights are given by those in authority, even if that means a struggle to put the compliantly like minded into authority. The asking for and granting of a right merely validates the power structure and its system of power. Domacracy being an almost perfect example of validating societal self imposed slavery by continuously validating the authority. It creates the iluusion that the slaves are in control.
This is why males ‘gave’ women the right to vote in a democratic system. Prior to democracy their was a different form of totlitarianism. Forms that didnt effect the psych-social of pretentions democracy. Its basic fuedalism, monarchy, force.
At some point the powers-that-be had an intuitive, psychological epiphany of deep feeling. And those men invented the slights of hand called democracy, banking, fracrtional reserve lending, debt and wage slavery, expansion and growth. Those males were not consciously masculine. The were the opposite.
They gave women the right to vote once they, and only they, (notwithstanding womens suffrage which was around for a loooong time before they were given what they got) decided it was useful to them. The very same reason that they first gave votes to the landed gentry (virtually all males), then to the other 95% of males, so on and so fowarth.
Because they realised the maleable and gullible tendencies of the mind and put that to work in their favour. They quelled the masses with the idea that we are in control of them. LOL.
The greatest move, the absolute master stroke of these guys was inviting women into the whole charade, whilst allowing the impression that they had fought for and won something of great value, thusly vastly increase the voter and later wage slaving base. The plantation was expanded far beyond expectation.
It amazes me how women really by into the whole emancipated female narrative and the politcal power of the vote. Whilst on the other hand more and more men are opting out of the whole game, having seen the charade for what it is.
Whilst much of Johns manifesto may be evidence of gender reversed oppression, l think its more likely an insight into a massive psych-social end-game. Many men and gradually more women have cottened onto the ruse and are either refusing to play, hedging their bets or removing and mitigating as much of the downside as possible.
Prolly has something to do with the fact that single person households are the fastest growing cohort, marriage is in terminal decline and serial monogomy that ceases before stautory transfers and claims can come into effect is on the rise.
The wisest thing to do is to develop a detachment to any societal outcomes. To reduce one’s stake in the system. To stop playing for definitive outcomes. To learn how to let go. To stop clinging. To surrender the self-referential, egoistic, emotive, heart felt attachment to outcomes.
Mint E wrote;
“Damned right, and I can’t wait. That’s just an indicator that young men want a different, more balanced way. They think they have more than a paycheck to contribute, and that they are more than their job. But they’re also more likely to start their own businesses because they don’t want to play the alpha dog corporate hierarchy game where the rewards are far off in their future, if they kiss the right butt the right way long enough. Autonomy is the name of the game for both women and men these days. that’s a good thing”
Whilst men want a different way, its not necessarily one that is based on balanced contribution nor is it driven by ‘what they have’ or that they ‘are more’.
Its not necesarily about rewards, or stating a business, or any of those other social hierachical measuring schticks. Fewer man are interested in the whole social alpha-dog game, and fortunately for society there is an increasing number alpah-seh-dogs to take up the administrative slack.
What more and more men are doing is opting out in an Ayn Randish Atlas Shrugged sort of way. Which means doing less than they can, contributing as little as possible, working and accumulating less that can be stolen by society, all for a flailing pension. These men (and more women too) will put massive pressure on the whole social order and its left/right wing ethos of self-effacing contribution. Less production, less tax revenues and more consumption and tax take will bring the thing to its knees.
The foundations of a monumental collapse of incalculable proprtions is in the making. It may not happen for many decades, but when the inevtable result of the whole ponzi scheme that is money, finance, the economy, social welfare, banking and a service based economy (including all the corporates), all comes to a crash, its not going to be pretty.
“Damned right, and I can’t wait. That’s just an indicator that young men want a different, more balanced way. They think they have more than a paycheck to contribute, and that they are more than their job. But they’re also more likely to start their own businesses because they don’t want to play the alpha dog corporate hierarchy game where the rewards are far off in their future, if they kiss the right butt the right way long enough. Autonomy is the name of the game for both women and men these days. that’s a good thing”
The problem is that civilization is built on the backs of young men. Young women can act like selfish idiots and only strain the system (so long as young men play along). But when young men start opting out, the cracks begin to show. If enough young men decide that they are being taken advantage of, it’s a show-stopper.
“The foundations of a monumental collapse of incalculable proprtions is in the making. It may not happen for many decades, but when the inevtable result of the whole ponzi scheme that is money, finance, the economy, social welfare, banking and a service based economy (including all the corporates), all comes to a crash, its not going to be pretty.”
No, it’s not going to be pretty. It’s going to be beautiful.
Classic markers of gender idealogues are that they’re schooled in the psuedo-sciences of sociology and psychology, both of which are steeped in the junk philisophies of post-modernism (MY reality) and relativism (MY truth).
For them everything is about personal narrative (ego) and nothing can be known (perception is subjective). Whereby nothing definitive, objective nor absolute can be said of reality, nor of truth, other than its ALL ABOUT ME.
Its not unusual that they should appear in this place, arguing with themselves about the esteem in which their egoes hold their pesonal narratives. Its very odd that the authors of this place are attempting to engage such true believers in ego on a rational basis, given the iherently illigocal, irrational and emotional construct that is self. l guess it is testament to the clear and rational thinking in which this site’s authors are engaged.
Unfortunately, it really doesnt add anything to the pursuit of clarity and tends to derail the intention of the article. Derailment and distraction are hallmarks of the egoistic and deeply deluded. What you may call unconscious, yet more appropriately defined as falshood or un-truth. Not of reality.
Thank you….thank you for this.
I was so angry and frustrated by the Arjuna and Guy self-hating apology. I considered doing a response myself. Thank you for articulating beautifully what I could not.
It seems there are few men or women who have any compassion at for men unless and until every (real or imagined) grievance women have has been addressed and completely eliminated (which of course is impossible).
I struggle with the reality that few will be convinced by this because they are so indoctrinated by the media of woman-good and man-bad.
Not all men are bad, not all women are good, and none are either one all the time. I’m sure we’ve all met our share of both sides and that is why it sets off the emotional responses that it has in some.
What seemed to be asked for was an apology, but what was implied in the subtext and John’s responses (Mary’s as well some of the time) was that apology alone would not be enough. I do not honestly know how anyone can “make right” what has been wrong in the past, and as long as people continue to cling to their real or imagined injuries or slights or abuses then they will continue to manifest them. And as long as the view of “men are superior to women in any way” (and the opposite viewpoint as well) survive and are blatted about vociferously, there will be no meeting of the minds, and most importantly, no meeting of the hearts.
Bottom line is choose for ourselves what we want to be true for us, and only for us. We cannot choose for anyone else, and half the time we don’t know what we really want anyway. Humans are such interesting creatures, so contrary, wanting both the ‘virgin’ and the ‘whore’, the ‘bad boy’ and the ‘knight’ that it is most important for us to know ourselves and our motivations, not necessarily to make anyone else abide by our rules.
In the meantime I personally am living the best, most creative, most loving life that I can in this moment. And I call it success. I wish you all your own clarity.
A manifesto for conscious women written by a man? It proves one of the points the conscious men’s manifesto was trying to make!
Let conscious men write their manifesto & conscious women write their own manifesto! If you are a conscious man, you don’t try to speak for women. Criticize the writers of the conscious men’s manifesto if you want … duke it out & decide amongst yourselves what you wish to take responsibility for & what you don’t. But don’t try to speak for women.
This is insulting & bogus. I write this as a feminist who deeply respects & honors the men in her life, including her main man. I honor masculine strength, protection, discernment, perseverance, & sacrifice. I have no problem supporting my husband’s total masculinity. I embrace my femininity AND my equality.
“I acknowledge that true religion is a pure and good abstraction created by men”?! What a load of crap! My religion is not an abstraction & does not fit into the so-called “world’s greatest religions” (who says they’re great anyway?!).
“I honor you for giving me a voice in shaping society through the right to vote”?! Give me a f@#$cking break! John knows good & well what women went thru to get that right … oh, thank you so much, John & other men for “giving” me a voice. Since my voice was so justly owned by you to begin with. Let me grovel that you finally allowed me to share my opinion too! Although, since you are obviously so much smarter & closer to God, maybe you shouldn’t have. I should just keep my mouth shut, except when it’s pleasuring you of course, & let you do all the manly, brainy, dirty-work like make decisions for all of us. But thank you, despite my inferiority, that you let me in anyway, thru your manly generosity … it didn’t have anything to do with the suffering of my suffragette sisters (at your manly hands).
Jacqueline, Rebekah, & I Used to Work with Mary also speak my mind, so I do not need to repeat.
But I will repeat this: JOHN & OTHER MEN, SPEAK FOR YOURSELVES, NOT FOR WOMEN!
Speak for yourself Crystalline.
Irony, much.
“it didn’t have anything to do with the suffering of my suffragette sisters”
How many million women died to get the vote? Oh, wait, it was MEN who died for women’s rights, just as it has always been MEN who died for everyone’s rights!
“I honor masculine strength, protection, discernment, perseverance, & sacrifice.”
Funny how two of those five qualities mainly benefit women and children at the expense of men (protection and sacrifice), and all five are generally regarded as human virtues, not manly virtues. Or do you believe that men are generally stronger, more selfless, more discerning, and more steadfast than women? I’m sure that if pressed hard enough, you would say that women can be all of these things, and that, in fact, women are better examples of these qualities than men are.
Think about it for a second. If I said that, compared to men, women are weak, cowardly, stupid, lazy, and selfish, you would call me a misogynist. Yet you claim to believe that strength, self-sacrifice, protectiveness, discernment, and steadfastness are “masculine” qualities? I have hard time believing that you truly believe that.
So what’s left? You honor the masculine virtues of being able to lift heavy objects and being ready to die to protect women and children? Forgive me if I’m not bowled over by your flattery.
Hunt,
I’d like to reply to all your comments.
on June 26, 201112:20 am you said
“For the most part, this is total BS. Trots out just about every crackpot, right-wing anti-feminist cliché in the book. Someone has seriously drank the Kool Aid here. Don’t defend your husband. This screed is vile.”
Answer: All you did here was call me names. Can you address specifically where my statements are false?
On June 26, 201111:37 am you said:
In the third bullet item, how has the struggle for equality and “sense of self” eroded the relationship between man and woman, moreover, how has it eroded civilization in general? This is a bald assertion, and the onus is on you to support it. Countries that advance equality of women are far an away more socially healthy than those that oppress women, so the proposition is absurd on its face. How has equality undermined civilization?
Answer: The pendulum has swung so far in favor of women that men are being marginalized. As a result men are checking out of the system in huge numbers. They correctly see a negative ROI in working like dogs for s system that treats them like shit. The willing participation of men is required to build and maintain civilization. When men check out civilization collapses. Look around and you’ll see the incipient cracks.
You wrote: In the fourth bullet item, how can this be a general complaint against womankind? Has the situation described ever happened? Sure, but that type of deception is not a general phenomenon.
Answer: Only now the advent of genetic testing are we realizing the scale of paternity fraud. The data indicates that historically the rate has been over 10%. In lower socioeconomic communities the rate today is about 30%. In higher socioeconomic communities the rate is around 3-5%. Women have lied, and continue to lie to their husbands about who fathered their children, duping them into caring for the spawn of another man. Ladies, you cannot grasp how deeply disgusting this is to men.. Today, in these situations family courts routinely rule that that even though the child is not his the man must still pay. Thousands of men have been turned into 18 year wage slaves as a result. The scale of the fraud makes the recent theft of wealth from the middle class by Wall Street look miniscule. If you don’t think this is a problem you need to get your head examined.
On June 27, 201112:09 am you wrote:
So now you’re saying that for civilization to thrive men must “own” the members of their family. I think you’re digging yourself in deeper. Maybe stop reading Roissy (yeah, I know). And his degree in Anthropology is from where…?
Answer: Please, for the last god damned time… please drop the Roissy thing. I did not get this idea from him. DROP IT. The idea that men must have inaliable legal rights and control over their families is millennia old. It was the basis of Roman civilization during the Republic. It is a common subject of discussion today. Answer my point – please tell me where I am wrong. If a man’s children and home can be arbitrarily and capriciously stolen from him by the state, what will motivate him to take responsibility for his family? Don’t you idiot feminists get this? When angry women use the power of the state to replace their husbands with a sugar daddy with infinitely deeper pockets, men will walk away from their duty as custodians of civilization. We see this happening now.
You wrote: I partly agree with your point about equality cause and effect, but it doesn’t really matter. Whether female equal rights is cause or effect, we know it is probably a necessary component of successful society.
Answer: Why are female rights a necessary component of a successful society? Some of the most successful societies in history, ones that have handed down a rich trove of science, art and philosophy, gave practically no rights to women at all. All that is required from women to have a successful society is that thet bear children.
You wrote: I honor you for providing for women before you provide for yourself. I honor you for the endless hours you’ve toiled in labs, so that I may live a long and healthy life. I apologize for demanding that all the developed countries of the world spend far more on cures for women’s diseases, while practically ignoring diseases that strike and kill men at higher rates. This you would have to show me studies to support. The entire field of women’s health was spurred by the fact that for decades medicine neglected female health issues. Perhaps you’re confusing remediation for a pro-woman bias?
Answer: Here we go again with the urban legend that research into women’s medicine was neglected in favor of men. In the past, testing new drugs and medical devices was much riskier than today, and in the past we did not have the epidemic of childlessness among young women that we have today. We don’t do medical research on women of childbearing age for obvious reasons. I can debunk this myth with one single fact. In all developed countries, for as long as those countries have been modern, the men in control of those counties have, without exception, allocated more state resources to women’s health in general than to men’s health.
You wrote: I honor you for remaining steadfast through my often irrational and emotional storms. Yet another bigoted statement. Perhaps you’re referring to PMS that strikes certain menstrual women? You realize that women pilot planes, captain ships, etc?
Answer: Mary wrote this. It is an honest recognition of a simple truth. Women are subject to emotional storms in a way that men are not. Anyone alive on planet Earth is intimately familiar with this fact. Because a few women pilot planes and captain ships does not change this fact.
You wrote: I honor you for being a gentleman. I apologize for demanding that men act like gentlemen while exempting myself from acting like a lady. I apologize for poisoning the relationship between men and women with my anger. I apologize for keeping up the pretense of being sugar and spice and everything nice while I am more often the one to initiate physical violence in dating and relationships. Where does any of this apply in general. Show me the dating stats. Are you saying that domestic abuse is predominantly female instigated?
Answer: read the endnote on this topic. I’m not going to debate with you whether the Earth is round or flat. It’s a fact that women today in intimate relationships with men are more often the ones to initiate violence. You have been lied to for years by the feminist propaganda machine. Wake up.
You wrote: I honor you for giving me the freedom to make my own choices about what I do with my body. I take responsibility for our epidemic of out of wedlock births. I apologize for socializing the costs of my undisciplined sons and emotionally damaged daughters, while fulfilling my own desires – and minimizing the importance of the role of the father. This is the first place you seem to think that men granted rights to women without women sharing the struggle to fight for them. Wrongo. As others have said, read something about the woman’s movement.
Answer: All rights to women were granted by men. If you want to re-define “struggle” to mean boycotts and marches, fine, but that is not the kind of struggle I’m talking about. “Winning” something means that you forced the opponent into a position, either by military or economic means, into a position where they either capitulate or are destroyed. Example: the Civil War. That is what it took to end slavery. That is what I call a “struggle.” None of this happened during any period of the women’s movement. Women were given these rights by men who could have chosen not to with very little adverse consequences.
You wrote: Regarding out of wedlock births, remember, it always takes two to tango.
Answer: I wish I had a dollar for every tine the tired old cliché “it takes two to tango” is trotted out as a retort in this debate. Let’s walk through the logic here. Stay with me on this one – I know this is hard for you. 1) It is a cornerstone of feminist ideology that the woman and the woman alone has 100% say over what she does with her body. 2) control is a zero-sum game; if the women has 100% control then the man must have 0% control. 3) having a child out of wedlock is therefore 100% the result of the woman’s actions. 4) It is a cornerstone of all civilized legal systems that one cannot be held responsible for what one has no control over. 5) Therefore, men cannot be held responsible in any way for out of wedlock births.
You wrote : I apologize for gladly taking a seat in the lifeboat while thousands of men went to an icewater grave that April night. I apologize for forgetting all the other times throughout history that men have sacrificed their lives for women. Point taken, but “gladly” is a perverse distortion. “Forgetting?” why would you say that?
Answer: Why did not one woman protest or give up her seat for a man as the ship went down. Visualize freezing to death while the women sit comfortably nearby in lifeboats. Get viscerally connected to the agony. Since then there have been many incidents of men sacrificing themselves for women. If women chose not to acknowledge this then it must be because they either don’t know this has happened, have forgotten, or don’t care. So are women stupid, forgetful, or uncaring?
On June 28, 20111:30 am you wrote:
Regarding female hysterical emotional storms and Mary Allen’s reply: Part of what is so annoying about John’s opus is that it isn’t the result of original research but rather the wholesale lifting of amateur opinion from other websites. If you want to know exactly where he got his thing about men remaining a strong ballast against female emotion, read Roissy’s Citizen Renegade (if you dare). I believe it will be rather eye-opening. THAT is the type of source John is using to garner opinion, not anything like original research.
Answer: Mary added this point in the Manifesto. She has never read Citizen Renigade. You know what they say about assumptions…
You wrote: I apologize for making an issue out of the rare practice of female genital mutilation, while remaining silent regarding the common practice of circumcision. There are in fact women who have made an issue out of male circumcision, mainly because they researched the matter for their sons and found it an abominable, unnecessary and damaging practice, then became active about it. AND, needless to say, there are man men how are quite pro-circumcision.
Answer: I’m not saying that there are NO women who have ever spoken out against circumcision you twit. I’m saying that relative to the number of women that speak out against the relatively rare practice of FGM, there are very, very few who speak out against the much more common practice of circumcision. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that a few exceptions to a rule to not invalidate the rule. THINK.
You wrote: I honor you for giving me a voice in shaping society through the right to vote. I apologize for bringing my instincts for security over freedom into politics and eroding America’s freedom by pushing socialist policies that are bankrupting this country. First, you’re making the same error you will make numerous times. Women fought for suffrage; it wasn’t “given” to them. You next point is an out of place political opinion. You’re obviously extremely right-wing. The New Deal was drafted primarily by men to provide a social safety net. Men supported it, men voted for it. Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs are backed by men as well as women.
Answer: Look at the endnote on this subject. We know that women, particularly unmarried women, tend to vote overwhelmingly in favor of social programs and expanded government. The evidence is strong that the demographic shift on the voter base between 1920 and the New Deal was influenced the expansion of government. It does not matter that the politicians were men. Progressive male politicians used the social instincts of the new base of women voters to enact policies that the majority of male voters had been resisting for decades. Today, with the huge proliferation of unmarried women, the problem has escalated. Unmarried women are, (for the most part, not all) natural born socialists, and socialism kills freedom because it requires the fruits of people’s labor to be transferred to the state.
You wrote: I apologize for contributing to a suffocating nanny state, complete with helmet laws and prohibitions on dodge ball, where everyone is a winner and has high self-esteem. Great, but out of place. Nobody cares if you’re very right-wing; it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
Answer: where the state expands, liberty yields. This is the major crisis of liberty we face today. Right wing or not, the bigger the state becomes, the less free we are. Women, more so than men, are a major driving force in this erosion of our liberties. It is their instinct to trade security for freedom.
You wrote: I honor you for creating millions of jobs through enterprise, ingenuity and hard work. Thank you for inviting me to work beside you. I apologize for disrupting the workplace. I apologize for bringing my hypergamous instincts and provocative dress into the workplace, thereby disordering what was once a well functioning and highly productive male hierarchy. I apologize for introducing sexual harassment policies that destroy workplace cohesion. For those confused by the term “hypergamous,” you’ll have to read Roissy. Warning: your opinion of John will now grow by the experience. “Inviting me to work beside you…” Oh, how very nice of men; by now you know the drill.
Answer: Roissy did not invent the concept of hypergamy. If an alien from outer space were to study humans, it would be one of the first things it would notice. Women (generally, not all) attracted to males who have status. They want to “marry up,” meaning they want to be with man who is taller, stronger , wealthier, more intelligent and more powerful than they are. Weak men are a turn off for most women. This is not Roissy’s idea nor did I get it from him. Besides, what if I did. Would that make the concept invalid? The problem is that people bring their instincts into all aspects of life. Women do not turn off their hypergamous instincts when they step into the workplace.
You wrote: I respect and honor all the soldiers, police and firemen who have sacrificed their lives to keep me, and my family, free and safe. Absolutely.
Answer: Thank you
You wrote: I apologize for pushing crippling double standards into the military and first responder agencies. I apologize for demanding that as a “soldier” I can pass physical fitness tests at levels that would constitute a failure for a man and then demanding to be treated with equal respect. Why not John? Wait, you didn’t harass that fat guy trying to make it across the Jungle Gym in 6th grade did you? Oh no.
Answer: I’m not sure I understand your response. Are you denying that in order to accommodate women in jobs that require physical strength that double standards had to be implemented? Are you denying that these double standards have an adverse impact on cohesion, mutual respect and overall effectiveness. Please address this issue.
I apologize for the deaths I have caused by forcing myself into fire departments when I could not pull the victims out of the burning building. I’ll look for the study in your footnotes. It better be there.
Answer: There is a reason that women hired into fire departments are called “firewatchers.” Every person deployed to a fire who displaces someone more capable makes the overall team less effective. If you are unconscious in a burning building who do you want coming in to get you, someone who can carry you out or someone who cannot? You have no concept of the magnitude of the difference in strength between men and women. If you did you would not be arguing this point.
You wrote: I acknowledge that boys and girls have different learning styles and we have radically shifted education to support girls. I realize how important men are as teachers and I apologize for driving men out of the teaching industry on fears of pedophilia accusations. I apologize to little boys for subjecting them to a feminized education experience that impedes learning, denigrates men and drives them out of higher education. Boys do seem to have recently fallen behind, a situation that should be vigorously addressed. I’m not sure about the pedophilia witch hunt.
Answer: The liability for men in primary education is so high that men dare not enter the profession. All men are suspect even though more female teachers are the main sex offenders with students. Yes, men have been driven out of education. Most boys will go all the way through school with hardly any male teachers. Boys need male teachers. You say that boys falling behind should be vigorously addressed. Then why do feminist groups vigorously deny that there is even a problem? Why do they fight any attempt to segregate boys and girls in education? Because they know that only by crippling men when they are young can women possible compete with men later in life.
You wrote: I honor you for wanting to fully develop your mind so you can maximize your contribution to humanity. I apologize for watering down the high-stakes, high-abstraction, high difficulty standards boys thrive on in exchange for the low difficulty continuous assessment that favors girls. I apologize for all the boys that would be valedictorians if intelligence mattered rather than the ability to perform mind-numbing tasks. If I’m understanding you correctly, you propose that boys are superior in school, but at the same time they are failing. To reconcile this contradiction, it is actually the method of education that is unsuitable to boys and has been nefariously subverted by female influence? So school is becoming some kind of sissy thing, and boys can’t relate. Does that pretty much sum it up?
Answer: Boys mature much more slowly than girls. They thrive on high stakes tests that have lots of abstraction. They hate coursework. One of the major trends in education over the last half century has been that education has been turned into an assembly line process. Coursework and continuous assessment have replaced high stakes testing as a major component of grading. As a result conscientiousness, requiring maturity, plays a bigger role than intelligence in grading. Abstraction has been all but driven from secondary education. The content has been feminized. Children are pushed into trying to learn more at earlier and earlier ages. Worst of all feminism has crept into the teaching profession. Almost from the time little boys start school they are denigrated and quickly learn that school is for girls. The answer to your apparent contradiction is that by the time boys mature they are smarter than girls – significantly so. Boys in all races and all nations score better on all highly g-loaded standardized tests. This is biology at work. Girls are smarter than boys and men are smarter than women. Feminists use this early disadvantage to cripple men later in life. The only answer is to separate boys and girls throughout all their education and have male teachers teach in a way that boys respond to.
You wrote: I appreciate men for creating room for me in higher education. I apologize for squandering society’s scarce higher education resources. I apologize for using affirmative action laws to exclude a better qualified man from the first-rate graduate program and then quitting my “career” after only a few years in business. I can’t remember the exact statistic, but 30% (?) of childbearing women do not reenter their career. So to you this is some kind of massive waste, I assume because you don’t consider an educated mother a valuable asset. And again, your opinion on affirmative action is irrelevant.
Answer: an educated woman is only an asset if she uses her education. Good quality higher education is a scarce resource for society. When society invests in someone’s education and they do not repay society with productive labor that uses that education then that person is a drain on society. Affirmative action is routinely used to divert scarce resources to people who will have a negative return on investment for society. As an example, this problem is crippling the British National Health Service.
On June 28, 20112:36 am You wrote:
It’s probably a good time to ask John and Mary Allen if any of these objections have made a dent at all. Would you modify the Manifesto in any way now that you’ve had this input, and if so, how?
Answer: No, I would not change anything.
On June 28, 20111:15 pm You wrote:
fight:
a battle or combat. 2.any contest or struggle: a fight for recovery from an illness. 3.an angry argument or disagreement: Whenever we discuss politics, we end up in a fight.If you have a fight with your wife do you necessarily leave her dead on the ground? So I think the word is quite appropriate, and don’t lose sight of the overall point. Do you thank someone for treating you justly? Perhaps, as in “thanks for not being an idiot,” which would probably be the only type of thanks men should have gotten for sharing the vote: “thanks for finally realizing you’ve been wrong.”
Answer: see my earlier comment on this subject.
On June 28, 20111:21 pm you wrote:
I think you misunderstood my request for reflection on the Manifesto. It wasn’t to reconsider how to better convey your pearls of timeless wisdom, but rather if there is anything substantive you might have second thoughts about. One thing I’m particularly curious about is whether you think there might be anything wrong with lifting amateur opinions from websites like Citizen Renegade and presenting them as well-researched truths?
Answer: Where did you get this bug up your ass about Citizen Renegade? The opinions expressed herein are mine.
On June 29, 20111:44 am you wrote:
“Do you mean to imply that I lifted the alpha/beta thing from Roissy?” No, that just raised my suspicion. What gave you away was this point from the Manifesto: “I honor you for remaining steadfast through my often irrational and emotional storms.” That’s pretty much verbatim Roissy. If you can find some support for it in evolutionary psychology, I’d love to hear about it.
Answer: Mary wrote that. She has never read any of the blogs you are talking about.
You wrote: BTW, you’re the one who started the pedantry regarding fight/fought. Fighting for social equity doesn’t necessarily mean civil war, though it often means blood in the streets. The civil rights movement was not a war either. Perhaps you think blacks just nagged their way to equal rights?
Answer: I think the civil rights movement was a great thing. Don’t get me wrong about that, but actually yes, blacks did nag their way into civil rights. They were granted these rights because white elites succeeded in moving public opinion in that direction. What exactly would blacks have done if the white majority had continued to deny then civil rights? Burn down a few cities? Then the police fire real bullets. What would blacks have done then?
You wrote: I want to address this point: I honor you for your fighting spirit and recognize how essential it was to our survival as a species. I promise to stop complaining about how violent men are and to acknowledge that I am here today because of battles fought by men, while I stood on the sidelines cheering them on. I promise to remember that I am the product of an experiment that had a one-in-a-million chance of success; that not
long ago, humanity clung to survival in tiny numbers and then in a flash went
from this miserable condition to master of the planet, walking the moon,
surveying planets and penetrating interstellar space. I promise to remember that
we got here through strife and competition – nature’s Supreme Court, from whose
verdict there is no appeal. Strong men culled weak ones so that I, bereft of the
genes of the vanquished, may be strong. This is the reproductive function of the
male and I promise to respect where that has taken us. The only endnote provided for this one is a reference to Democritus. It’s interesting that you should first complain about accusations of male violence, then state that humanity has arrived where it is through violent upheaval wherein men culled the weak from the strong, that in fact we are here because of the battles fought by men (???) Yes, you’re right, perhaps we all need a lesson on logic. There is of course on massive an unfounded assumption you’re making here, which is that warfare actually culls undesirable (according to you) traits from the gene pool. Perhaps it’s due to too many Hollywood movies that we picture the strong and impervious warrior unstoppably chopping down his weak opponents. History probably more closely followed the pattern that aggressive, confident (alpha?) men were among the first to die in battle, the field being left to those who understood the better part of valor. Women and children died in battle too, more so in modern times. In fact the balance of casualties has recently shifted from those of professional soldier to hapless innocents.
Answer: I’m not attributing the concept to Democritus – just the quote. Wherever I quote someone I note it, regardless of the context. All you preconceptions are about to come tumbling down as we get more and more knowledge into our collective genetic ancestry. Let’s take as an example: the Caribe Indians. Ever heard of them? Probably not. They are all gone, and not through disease. They once were the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. The only trace we still have of them today is in the mitochondrial DNA of the present population. There is no trace of Y chromosomal DNA from the original Caribe population. This means that when the white settlers came they killed all the men, and used the women as breeding stock. This was, until fairly recently in human history, the standard process whereby tribes competed. While a few women and children die in this process, the numbers are insignificant compared to the number of men that die. Don’t use this stupid red herring argument. The reproductive function of the male is as a genetic filter. The strong get to breed and the weak get killed. This process drives sexual selection to select for strong men who can outwit and out fight other men for access to breeding females. Lots of other anthropologists share my opinion that the meteoric rise of humanity is driven in part by this process. Can we prove it? No. But it is reasonable.
On June 29, 20111:55 am you wrote:
“Now I think I understand what’s going on here:” Yeah, all the pieces kind of fit into place once you read Roissy.
Answer: WTF? The pieces fit the writings of lots of authors. What is your hang-up with Roissy?
On June 29, 20112:04 am you wrote:
From “The 16 commandments…”
IV. Don’t play by her rules. If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable. Thanks, I didn’t think I would be able to find the actual quote. John, dude, you are so busted…So now are you willing to at least reconsider one point of the Manifesto, considering it was lifted from a pop amateur blog about getting laid?
Answer: Please shut the fuck up about Roissy. I’ve never read this “commandment” before. Besides, what If I did get it from him. Does that make my points invalid?
On July 1, 20111:28 am you wrote:
Thanks Mint E. and Voice from Aus. I have to say you’ve both sustained my interest, and I’ve learned a lot. At some point we need to get beyond bickering and admit that both sexes have been victimized to a certain extent by culture, society, and convention. One of the things I find frustrating is that many people vilify feminism without actually understanding that, in its general sense, feminism attempts to study how social norms have entrapped both sexes. Before the men’s movement, it was women and feminism that got there first, and all of us should appreciate that. For the men in this discussion, you have to realize that without the women’s movement, there would not be a men’s movement. Not yet, anyway. Can we stop slinging turds at each other and start trying to dig our way out of this mess? I don’t know. What I find less disappointing than this manifesto is the fact that John has been pretty absent in discussing it. I realize he has a time constraint to deal with, but really when you release something like this, you should be willing to argue it seriously, openly, and thoroughly. Less than that, and you are just toying with the sensibility of your readers. I think we deserve more than that.
Answer: If I do not post comments often enough it is because I don’t have time. Thanks to all the other contributors for keeping this thread going. I wrote the Manifesto in response to Arjuna’s Manifesto, in which he called for all men today to take responsibility for the sins of a few long dead men. This offended me. Now I could have written a blog post to that effect but how effective would it have been in getting all of you emotionally connected to how offensive Arjuna’s piece of crap was to men. Not very effective. So instead I wrote a mirror image of his Manifesto. And it got you all riled up. That is what I want.
On July 1, 201112:29 pm you wrote:
John is a true believer. I could destroy every point of this Manifesto and he’d still believe it to his core. That’s what being a true believer is. There is an element of that in all of us. The antidote is to bring yourself to candidly admit when you find an error or when the other side has a point, but a lot of true believers think opening a tiny crack will result in a growing fissure, and the whole edifice might then come tumbling down. This is not true. Speaking for myself, I’m willing to admit that John and V From Aus make some good points, yet my entire world view hasn’t crumbled. As far as I can see, John can bring himself to concede a single thing, and that probably indicates that we’re wasting our time with him.
Answer: If you can destroy every point please do so without insulting me. Attack my points with facts and logic and leave you emotions out of it. I want to engage in a real discussion.
On July 2, 201112:12 am you wrote:
The same goes for cherry picking a single study to refute a point. Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I not only question the provenance of the websites he references, but the books as well, and this is not ad hominem. We’re relying on these sources to supply reliable data and analysis. The Manifesto has the feel of being cobbled together by studies and opinion that fit the conclusion intended. That is only a general impression; I’m not trying to debunk any point by it. I could probably make any argument I ever intended, backed by self-published or specialty published literature. It boils down to whether there is any reputability to them, how well they have been reviewed, etc. (BTW, I would like to specifically request a response from John to that point.) Many of the points John makes are not harms by woman against man; they are by society (as architected primary by men) against men. This is one of the big disconnects I find grating in this whole discussion. Feminism actually discusses this type of victimization by society against both genders (and there is a vast literature on it). How do you respond to this? Have you read anything about it? (I would like to specifically request a response to this.)
Answer: Feminism long ago stopped being about redressing wrongs against women such as discrimination. Like all movements, once it achieves its aims it morphs into something else. Most of you old crones steeped in feminism have no idea how much younger women today want nothing to do with it. Today feminism stands for favoritism for women while avoiding responsibility. It has become co-opted by the political left as a tool for expanding the power of the state into every aspect of our lives.
On July 2, 201112:43 am you wrote:
The “feminism” listing at Wikipedia begins like this: Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women’s rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men’s liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are “person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism.”[4] As I’ve said before, if it weren’t for feminism and the women’s movement, there would be no men’s movement; there would be no social gender role awareness. The limited view some people have of feminism is due simply to a cursory and ignorant perspective. For them, feminism is simply a way to subjugate or blame men; they haven’t got a clue that there is more to it than that. If the object here is conscious awareness, then you have an obligation to appreciate feminism for supplying the conscious awareness of gender roles and how they can harm both men and women. I’m quite sure it will be nearly impossible, due to preconceived notions (and this unfortunately probably includes John) to wrap their minds around the fact that we all owe a certain gratitude to feminism, but I believe that is in fact the case.
Answer: If the guys in high school in the 1950’s had just taken the ugly girls to the dance we could have avoided the whole feminist movement. Let’s get to the core of what feminism is really all about. Beautiful, hot women don’t give a rat about feminism. They love the attention they get from men. They love being feminine and surrendering to a powerful, confident men. They want to be led. They want to be “taken,” to his castle and to his bed. They want to bear his child. Feminism is largely the religion of ugly Jewish lesbian baby boomer intellectuals. It purports to speak for all women. It does not. It’s a grievance movement of crones who are “invisible” to men.
On July 2, 20111:23 am you wrote:
Part of my reason for posting the Manifesto is because John is actually pretty good at helping people understand things. There is a group that is only interested in digging in their heels and their own views, and nothing we can say here will make a difference. There is another group who really gets what John is speaking about, and are curious to learn something new (or how John holds his own). Remember Mary, this is a two-way street. It’s no good to emphasize the need to remain flexible without John making a similar effort, which to date he hasn’t done, as far as I can see. He’s demonstrated no openness to discussion whatsoever; instead he’s become defensive, closed, and either insists that opposing arguments are in denial or unable to perceive the truths he asserts, whether solidly based or not. That is simply not going to fly, and it’s fundamentally disrespectful to the readers here. I you and John can’t admit that, then there’s really no point continuing.
Answer: I am open to discussion. So let’s have a discussion, not a name calling session. Where, specifically are my points wrong?
On July 5, 20112:04 am you wrote:
John,
Thanks for your lengthy reply, the details of which I will file at the back of my mind. You spin a good yarn, but your story is not enough to make me concede anything. Fortunately for me, my position is analogous to the attorney for the defense, while you are prosecuting this case. I need only raise enough question that you have not proven your case beyond reasonable doubt, and I essentially win. This doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong; it only means that you will have to try your case at some later date, which fortunately in science you are always allowed to do.
The results you are resting your case on are very recent, since up to the end of the 20th century it was general consensus that there was no significant difference in gender IQ measurements. From what I can determine, the difference in gender IQ variance comes from one study that found twice the number of males in any one segment of the upper or lower bell curve. A double frequency of male geniuses is hardly enough to explain the yawning gap in historical male/female achievement. This alone should suggest that there are other factors at work.
Answer: Human males have substantially greater variance on all phenotypic traits, intelligence included, than females. This is settled knowledge. A few studies can be found where this is not the case, but the preponderance of the literature supports this proposition. Males geniuses are not found at double the frequency of females. At genius level the ratio is more like 13 to 1. At the very highest levels of human intellectual capability, i.e., the top 20 that ever lived, the ratio becomes almost infinite. This is easily enough to account for the fact that from 800BC to 1950AD, women account for less than 2% of significant contribution in the arts and sciences.
You wrote: A wider curve of male achievement could also be easily explained by social factors, like the possibility that men are more subject to either intellectual and personal reinforcement or personal humiliation, as you seem to think has been happening due to female intrusion into education. In other words, this could be explained by nurture, not nature.
Answer: Social factors cannot explain this. For a great discussion on why discrimination cannot be responsible for this I recommend the Book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray. Go the Chpater called “Dead White Males.”
You wrote: I’m not just being a wet blanket here. You simply can’t make the kinds of positive assertions you have made, based on very dubious assumptions, and expect a free pass. Parsimony and “Occam’s Razor” are notoriously unreliable general philosophies upon which to base a theory, especially one in a domain including human psychology, social and biological interaction. In fact, we might reject the simplest explanation out of hand. “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong” H. L. Mencken
Answer: For the benefit of those who don’t know what Occam’s Razor is, it is a principle of logic and discourse that says that all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably (but not necessarily) the correct one. The most parsimonious argument, i.e., the one that requires the least qualifiers and supplementary conditions, is probably the correct one. For a good discussion of this in the context of male vs. female achievement and social factors, I recommend the book Why Men Rule By Goldberg. While I cannot “prove” anything, I assert, as do the majority of experts in the field of psychometrics, that biology, as the most parsimonious explanation for the difference in M-F intellectual performance, is probably the correct one.
You wrote: I don’t want to engage in the logical error of personal attack (ad hom) but throughout these comments you show signs of “contrarian syndrome,” a diagnosis I just invented, but noteworthy on many blogs. That is, you mistake heated opposition to your controversial claims as signs that you are actually on the “right track.” Somehow, the fact that many people reject your claims translates, for you, into the impression that you are more likely to be correct than the opposite. You should really try to break yourself of it because it’s actually quite a rotten intellectual philosophy and serves more to close your mind than anything else.
Answer: a consensus opinion based on ignorance is not cause to abandon one based on fact and logic. Most people are idiots. They don’t know where Egypt is or whether the sun or earth is bigger. Why should I surrender to their opinions? Please identify where my arguments fail on fact or logic.
On July 7, 20112:57 am you wrote:
“I could go on forever regarding the whole intelligence issue and never change anyone’s mind.” (John’s comment)
The reason you could do this is there is no definitive conclusion to be had at this time. If there was, even it were a general consensus, you might have some polemical leverage, but there isn’t. Your certainty is premature, and therefore suspect. My suspicion is we are never going to arrive at your conclusion, based on my impression that “intelligence” or mental talents will eventually be discovered to be more multifarious than can be statistically ranked in any order as per gender or race. And we will discover the folly of even making the attempt, as we discovered the folly in eugenics. So I can’t wish you luck, John, but thanks for all the fish.
Answer: I have no certainty about anything. No one does. I do to dispute that there are many aspects to intelligence. I merely point out that the best explanation we have today is that these different aspects of intelligence are all just different aspects of a common thing called Spearman’s g. The literature strongly supports the position that g is real, measurable, and has significant predictive validity for life outcomes. The evidence also strongly supports the position that males and females differ significantly in g and that this difference, along with differences in temperament, are sufficient to account for the disparities we see in the choices men and women make and their relative prevalence at different levels of status and accomplishment.
I cannot at present read your whole response to Hunt, John, as just the first couple of pages has caused me to feel many things. First of all, I want to vomit. Second, I want to behave like a man and smash you in the face (which surprised me because I have always been totally nonviolent). Third, I recognize that there may be salient points in your comments, but you express such an overwhelming derision and disgust with women that I cannot read further until I process the shit I’ve already taken in.
It is obvious that you are relishing your victimhood, and have all the ‘facts’ and ‘studies’ to back you up and help you feel righteous. Well good for you! The fact that your arguments simply further and deepen the division between the two genders is very sad, especially since you don’t even see that!
Having said that I feel there is no point in continuing this conversation. It is obvious that you prefer to argue for your limitations than accept the reality of the past AND MOVE ON. I am very very grateful that there are so few men like you in my life!
Salty,
Why did you put the words facts and studies in quotes? Are you implying that John fabricated those facts and studies? Or are you saying that we shouldn’t pay attention to facts and studies?
Sorry, but the universe does not care how you feel. Emotion is a great and wondrous thing, but it is not always a good thing. Like everything else, it has its place. A debate is not the place for emotion, and it’s certainly not the place for emotional outbursts such as your last comment.
Yes, Jesse, I’m sure you believe that emotion, like women, have their place.
I thought this was supposed to be a conversation, a discussion, not a debate. If it was a debate then comments of John’s like this “Please shut the fuck up about Roissy.” and this “Attack my points with facts and logic and leave you emotions out of it. I want to engage in a real discussion.”, and this “Most of you old crones steeped in feminism” and this “Beautiful, hot women don’t give a rat about feminism. They love the attention they get from men. They love being feminine and surrendering to a powerful, confident men. They want to be led. They want to be “taken,” to his castle and to his bed. They want to bear his child.” show that John really has no interest in discussing anything, he just wants to put forth his view as ‘how it is’ or ‘how it should be’ and beat everyone over the head with his carefully chosen sources that support his perspective.
This viewpoint, which you apparently share, is rampant and has been for centuries, perhaps as long as humans have existed. Yes there is a natural physiological urge for a woman to find the ‘best’ mate to breed with, as there is for a man to find the most attractive, healthy, fertile woman. Nature intends to prolong the human race and with that goal has built in those drives. But this attitude goes beyond that. While we could honor each other gender-wise for the part each plays in maintaining the human race, the patently petty and shallow attributes John paints women with in general show his misogyny and general disrespect for womankind. It would seem that he has experienced the same being directed towards him, and for that I have to say I understand his pain, but I can also see why it happened. Not many women will put up with that attitude any longer, so if you’ve got one who will, hang on to her.
I’ve never hated men as a whole gender, only disliked and avoided individuals who were distastefully ignorant, abusive, or arrogant (who usually don’t have any right to be). Many men, maybe even MOST men, are worthy of honoring, and compassionate towards women and other men, not that any of those seem to be posting here.
Amanda of July 9th.
There’s nothing ironic about it at all if you note the context.
If someone has indeed spoken my mind, I acknowledge that. Those two women did, & I didn’t need to waste space posting the same thoughts. Those two women did not say, “I Crystalline feel this way & that way,” so that I would then feel the need to disclaim them when they were incorrect. That is what John did. That is the difference.
What John did is to write this Manifesto in first person, as though it was written by a woman or a collection of women. Not so.
It’s perfectly logical for me to acknowledge that someone has aptly though unintentionally spoken my mind. And then to turn around & note that someone else implying to speak for women has not done so at all. If John had written, “I would like women to apologize for this & that” that would’ve been in his own voice, & I would have no argument on this account. Obviously, it is his right to wish for whatever he wants.
Those two women spoke their minds, & I agree. I don’t need to repeat what they said. John, as a man, tried to speak women’s minds; & I, as a woman do not agree. And don’t want to hear men writing as women … unless they are clearly writing fiction.
@ Jesse on July 10th
Women experienced torture in order to get the right to vote, & you know it. I honor anyone who dies for another’s rights, & I honor those who experience torture as well.
Regarding the qualities of strength, protection, discernment, perseverance, & sacrifice. I do think of strength, protection, & discernment as particularly masculine qualities; though I also acknowledge that masculine & feminine qualities have the ability to flow through both sexes. Women do indeed exhibit strength & protection, in numerous ways. Often that strength is of a nature other than physical, though. In my own life, I benefit largely from the strength, protection, & discernment of the men in my life. I honor them as particularly masculine, though also embodied by women too.
Perseverance and sacrifice … as I sit with these, I realize that these are largely displayed by both the women & men in my life whom I deeply respect. Are they particular masculine qualities? Perhaps. It’s not to me as clear as I think about it more deeply.
Very specifically, you ask me:
“Do you believe that men are generally stronger, more selfless, more discerning, and more steadfast than women?”
My answer is that I do believe, physically speaking, men are stronger in general. I actually think that’s a given, not just my personal belief. Mentally, are they more discerning? In general, I would say yes, though I think in modern times, as the sexes embody more of both masculine & feminine qualities, I see more women embodying this quality. More selfless & steadfast? As I sit here & tune in to my personal experience as well as tales of history, I would have to say no. But this is all of course my opinion, & it’s possible I could be swayed.
I do indeed think that women can embody all five of these qualities, & I have seen this myself first hand. But you are incorrect when you say “I’m sure that if pressed hard enough, you would say that … in fact, women are better examples of these qualities than men are.” I think they are qualities that all can embody; but, as I already expressed, particularly in regard to the first three, I think they come from masculine energy. I certainly do not think that women are “better examples” of them!
You say, “If I said that, compared to men, women are weak, cowardly, stupid, lazy, and selfish, you would call me a misogynist.”
I don’t have any reason to call you names. Note that I never called John any name; I only asked him to take a specific action which was to write from the perspective of a man, not a woman or women in general. As I already expressed: physically, compared to men, women are weaker in general; not “weak” but weaker. That’s only in general, as there are physically weak men & physically strong women. But, yes, I do honor the masculine ability of “being able to lift heavy objects.” And why not? My husband’s strength touches me every day. I am happy to lean into it & acknowledge this difference between us; I am grateful for the things that he can do that I cannot; & I try to do my best to nurture him with my gifts. I don’t think that equality has to mean sameness. At all!
I don’t see any reason to call women “cowardly,” which has the ring of insult, & I think there are loads of examples of women’s bravery. However, in my personal life, there are many things in the physical realm that my husband is more confident doing than I am; largely because he is physically stronger! Again, I acknowledge this difference & honor it.
You say: “Forgive me if I’m not bowled over by your flattery.” I never intended to flatter you, Jesse, just to speak my mind. I am not a woman who thinks of women & men as “the same.” I think masculine & feminine energies are distinct; that both sexes can embody them; & that it’s healthy for women to learn to embody some masculine qualities & vice-versa for men, for the sake of being whole & also because one cannot always depend on someone of the opposite sex. But I don’t think men need to completely take on femininity or women masculinity, in general. I live my life largely as a very feminine woman, & I am proud of who I am. And, when I display my brilliance, whether it is more “feminine” or “masculine” in nature, I want to be fairly compensated.
Thanks for engaging in this dialogue. May you be whole & may you be honored by those in your life.
Crystalline,
I see that your admiration of masculinity has been boiled down to the observation that males are physically stronger than females. You waver and equivocate on every other point.
But if I said that women are generally more nurturing, more empathetic, and better communicators, I suspect that you’d agree. Am I wrong?
Good lord, looks like John has gone totally off his rocker. Reminiscent of Mel Gibson off the wagon. Color me…unsurprised.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. I am angered by people claiming men have all the rights in this society. I didn’t even have the right to intact genitals.
John on July 12, 20118:35 am wrote: “Thank you for sharing this perspective. I am angered by people claiming men have all the rights in this society. I didn’t even have the right to intact genitals.”
Wow. And do you hold women responsible for that? I’m sorry you were butchered, like many men, (and many women in third world countries where it is most often the men in their lives demanding it). There has been so much harm done to each gender, not only by its opposite but also by its own! When will we learn to value each other ‘as we are’ and stop trying to make each other into something else to satisfy our egos?
“Wow. And do you hold women responsible for that?”
Why do feminists hold men as a group responsible for the actions of a tiny elite?
“Thank you for sharing this perspective. I am angered by people claiming men have all the rights in this society. I didn’t even have the right to intact genitals.”
I’m not making light of anyone’s grievances. I share your disgust with genital mutilation, but as I said in the comments above, circumcision is supported by men as well as women, and female circumcision is supported by women as well as men in the middle east. You seem to make a habit of barking up the wrong tree. The real culprit is being blinded by social convention, something feminism attempted to address (as I also said).
You have many valid grievances, which you appear to have translated into a searing contempt for women. Add to that references to middle-aged Jewish women and bedding hot babes, and you project the very convincing image of a total nutter.
Jesse on July 12, 2011 11:45 am “Wow. And do you hold women responsible for that?”
Why do feminists hold men as a group responsible for the actions of a tiny elite?”
Jesse, as I stated, there have been abuses on both sides. I know you cannot tell it from the printed word, but I was asking John if he did hold women responsible, not assuming that he was. Yet you and John both seem to focus only on the wrongs done to males, and have no interest in healing the divide, thus you continue to create and expand it. Perhaps your (males’) pain needs to be fully expressed before it can let go and heal and it’s certainly being expressed here, as is womens’.
Sorry for the unfortunate line break. It should have read:
Jesse on July 12, 2011 11:45 am “Wow. And do you hold women responsible for that?”(quoting me)
Why do feminists hold men as a group responsible for the actions of a tiny elite?”
Jesse, as I stated, there have been abuses on both sides. I know you cannot tell it from the printed word, but I was asking John if he did hold women responsible, not assuming that he was. Yet you and John both seem to focus only on the wrongs done to males, and have no interest in healing the divide, thus you continue to create and expand it. Perhaps your (males’) pain needs to be fully expressed before it can let go and heal and it’s certainly being expressed here, as is womens’.
Added: What I see here is many women reaching out to men and men refusing to extend their hands in peace. Granted both sides have issues, but it seems it is the female who is the peacemaker in general. Interesting.
@ Jesse on July 11th.
I’m curious what your intention is in this exchange with me. My original intention, when I started commenting, was to express my upset with a man writing this piece in the voice of a woman, intended as a manifesto for women. I did that. Also, to say that I honor the masculine, whether or not I articulated my perspective in a manner that you can appreciate.
Then, when you replied, I had an intention to reply thoughtfully & thoroughly to you, which I did. I also had an intention to acknowledge the suffering that my suffragette sisters went thru to get the right to vote that should have always been theirs, that no-one should have ever needed suffer or fight for to begin with, because it should have been a given. I acknowledged that suffering.
From your reply, it seems that your intention is to insult me, by saying that I “waver and equivocate on every point,” since another person who empathized with me might praise that I “honestly explore the complexity of every point.” In fact, these two descriptions might well illustrate some of the differences between the masculine & feminine perspectives, both of which are essential to the well-being of humanity.
Then, it seems your intention might be to prove me wrong in some respect with your leading statement & question about how I perceive women in general. In my opinion, adjectives like “nurturing” & “strong” are too open to interpretation to be used that generally without equivocacy. I realize that in my initial post, I did use some that way, but in responding to you, I decided to consider deeply what I was saying, & I think it is complex. For example, with the word nurturing … it depends on what you consider as nurturing. If we think of someone cuddling, singing a lullabye, or cooking a meal as nurturing, maybe women thruout history have tended to be more nurturing. But if we think of bringing home a buck for several months of dinner, fixing a car, or building a bookshelf as nurturing, then that argument fails. And, of course, men cuddle & cook, women hunt & build. I am speaking to the more common distribution of tasks.
So, no, I wouldn’t say women are more nurturing, & I’m not really interested in making many generalizations, which I don’t think are usually helpful … but from time to time, there are generalizations that seem to be rather consistent in my experience. If that seems equivocal to you, that’s fine, but it’s all true. I wouldn’t say women are better communicators, for example … but I would say that, in my world, they tend to talk more!
What I do believe to be true, whether we can delineate in completely in two nice neat packages of adjectives, is that there is a masculine energy & a feminine energy. This is the energy that, in my experience, creates polarity &, for me, chemistry. I find the polarity of these energies fuels my sexual stimulation. I value that, which is one of the reasons I honor masculine energy.
It doesn’t really matter if I think, in general, women are this or men are that. I believe in & honor masculine energy; & though I believe that energy can be embodied by any gender, I see men as the primary carriers of that energy. And I am okay with this. I also know that for various people in various amounts, it is important to practice some integration of these energies within. I believe that one can do this without giving up one’s primary energy expression.
I hope that clarifies some of my thoughts on the matter for you, since you seem so interested! To encapsulate: I honor the gifts of masculine energy & feminine energy; I do not personally hold a grudge against men in general, even as I take a stand for a more balanced system than patriarchy; & I want women to speak for themselves.
Quite frankly, regarding the original the Dear Woman video born from the Manifesto for Conscious Men, while I appreciated the intention & sincerity of the video & very much respect its creators, I found myself bored halfway thru & turned it off. It didn’t upset me & it didn’t heal some unresolved pain deep inside me, because I already feel at peace with men in general. I didn’t care for John’s decision to write this Manifesto for Conscious Women, & I found it insulting &, frankly, ridiculous, because the issue the Manifesto for Conscious Men was addressing was around abuses caused by systemic control of women & policies that supported that. But I am empowered & privileged enough in my life for this historic imbalance to not largely affect me on a daily basis. And so, I appreciated that video, but wasn’t deeply moved by it. But I am moved by the sentiment that these men are trying to create balance & healing between the sexes.
On the other hand, I found Will Ferrell’s spoof of Dear Woman completely hilarious!!!
And on that note, I will end today’s missive on this topic.
Many blessings,
Crystalline
http://awakeningwomen.com/2010/10/21/our-deepest-apologies-to-man/#more-555%3Cbr%3E
Here is a manifesto for women actually written by WOMEN!
Crystalline,
if you think that males and females are incapable of writing from either side of the false dichtomy that is gendered consciousness, then you have no understaning of gender psychology, which is the whole framework of what is called Woman or Man. It is the most pervasive delusion and the most significant obstacle to any sort of spiritual awakening. Or enlightenment, as some would have it.
The whole gendered manifesto thing, the whole apology thing, the pretentions, the patronage, the thank yous and victimhood are all expressions of being lost. Stumbling through the figurative fog, looking for recogniseable shapes rendered from that fog and grasping at nothing.
It will get you nowhere.
Which incidentally, is were One already and always is.
Now there’s an irony.
Amanda ~
You’re very poetic. I don’t know if I agree that it is the most pervasive delusion … in some ways I think each of us as individuals (or “individuals” if you prefer) has their own. Personally, my favourite delusion (like many of my female ~ or “female” if you prefer ~ friends) is that I’m being rejected or abandoned in some way. My husband’s is that he is being invaded. How clever, fitting, &, again, pervasive. Most hetero couples I know suffer from some form of this … heck, most couples of any persuasion.
But the gender dichotomy is a good one too; I do agree with you on that. Still, I have found that I can enjoy a certain amount of polarity while playing in this body that is my form at present, just as the gods can in their forms. So I don’t mind appreciating both/and: ultimately, we are beyond this dichotomy; yet here & now we can have some fun with it if we don’t take ourselves too seriously. Which I do from time to time!
Blessings to you,
Crystalline
Crystalline brings up an interresting point; is it acceptable/appropriate/essential that a member of the group being appologised to be integral to the appology?
My feeling is that there must me a member of the appoloGISING group (A) involved, but the participation of the appoloGISED to group (B) is an interresting question.
If one doesn’t consult the B group, how does one know what has offended. Also the B group member needs to be one who feels an appology is necessary.
For men to appologise to women is easy. We have been bombarded with complaints for our entire lives. For women it’s probably harder. They haven’t heard our message. We say it, but they largely don’t hear it over the din of feminist propaganda.
The ‘appology’ Crystalline links to seems more like another attack than an appology as all the (5) items seem rooted in the belief that men are oppressive, and abusive and women are self sacrificing.
Voice From Aus: If you want to feel that you are a victim, NO ONE can change that perspective for you. Only you can do that for yourself. It does have its payoffs .. one can whine and moan interminably ‘poor me’, but eventually when no one bends over backwards to make one feel better, it gets old fast. And then you grow! 😎
Salty: Actually most of my friends say that I am a triumph of optimism over experience. When I graduated I applied to the newly renamed “Womens and Childrens” hospital for work as a research assistant. I applied for three jobs there. My friends kept telling me about their sexist policies (they actually have notices inside the building saying that they ONLY care about women and children) but I kept applying.
They said on their advertisments that they were “an equal opportunity employer”.
Eventually a doctor at the hospital told me to stop applying, that there were never going to hire me because I was male.
I went to the equal op commission and they said it was completely legal to discriminate IN FAVOR of women in Aus.
MRAs are not playing the victim like feminists do, they are reacting against unfair current legislation not past, perception based sexism.
Argus Eyes said it very well; there are different levels of discrimination.
1. personal beliefs.
2. personal actions.
3. public beliefs.
4. public actions.
5. government beliefs.
5. government laws.
Most MRAs are fine with 1. If someone wants to think bad things about your group, that’s fine.
If somone actually says something about your group (2), also okay.
If the general zeitgeist think you are inferior (3) – it’s worrying.
If there are public apartheit zones (4) – womens/whites only areas in private institutions/clubs – it’s very worrying.
When the government, that is supposed to represent everyone makes those policies into practice (5) and law (6), that’s unacceptable.
Feminists are currently waging a war on the (1) level (having won 6,5,4,3 and 2), MRAs are fighting 5 and 6 (that have been put there by feminists).
Congratulations Voice. Perhaps there is a rebalancing going on in Aus, as there has been a definite patriarchal energy for centuries. It’s difficult when the pendulum swings too far, (either way)and I know that it will once again find balance. This is happening in many areas of the world, and many situations, not just the gender specific ones.
I have been on the opposite side of your story … not hired because even though I had years of experience, I did not have a degree, where a young man with a degree and NO experience was hired over me. And other times I have held the position and had a young man (again, a degree and no experience) hired to ‘supervise’ me and then had to teach him his job! There are many instances where we have suffered, both male and female, and it’s not going to change in an instant. At least perhaps by talking it out the way we are (when we can at least take a step back from our personal wrath) we are exposing the issues to sunlight and consciousness. After that, it’s a choice for each one of us … Do we act based on our anger/victimization or do we act based on mutual respect? It is more difficult when the respect is NOT mutual, but someone has to step up or it will just continue in the same path it has been. Been there done that bought the T-shirt!
Thank you for sharing your experience.
Thanks a lot for the wonderful post. While I was reading it I discovered a few things that I have been contemplating lately. I wanted to leave you a brief note to let you know that I admire what you wrote. Lately I’ve been dealing with some tough personal issues and have felt somewhat disconnected. There may be a number of online content material available however it is excellent content like yours that gives info to people such as myself. I learned a lot from your post. Thanks, and I’ll definitely bear in mind your post and come back once more to learn more of your terrific content within the future.