Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Dear Men, Be Well....and Stay Mad

For all the hoopla over the MRM being a bunch of angry reactionaries, which should be dismissed--check out this article encouraging women to get angry and stay angry, because of course, for women, anger is something entirely different and acceptable. It is a "feeling connected to a cause or movement is not only beneficial to society, but to one's own personal health".

The author signs off by saying "be well....and stay mad". Likewise, I suggest in the spirit of equality (since men and women are equal, they can express emotions equally) and for a man's personal health ;-), I encourage them to keep doing what they are doing, keep blogging, keep letting your voices be heard, keep fighting fire with fire, and most importantly, be well and stay mad.

Note: Anger being righteous indignation, not anger for anger's sake. I am NOT advocating violence.


Jennifer said...

I don't think "stay mad" is as important as "keep fighting". You can fight without constant anger, and it's better for your health; with non-relenting anger you get stressed, exhausted, emotionally wrung out, and almost as importantly, you can lose footing in your arguments. Few people will listen to men who spew disgusting profanity, sexual insults and death wishes on women, or women who put down men no matter what, wish there were less of them, and laugh at horrible stories like Lorena Bobbit's. Two men, one real and one fiction, both said something along the lines of, "Fight, but don't show anger" or "Don't let them see your emotions at all", because this way you will keep control. I haven't succeeded in this, and no one should succeed in never feeling or showing anger, but I've remembered it for the sake of temperance.

Ping Jockey said...

When you have to argue/fight, do not let your anger control your actions. Instead, CONTROL IT and USE IT to fuel your energy and guide your actions. (It's not easy, but it is possible. But it takes a lot of practice!)
And NOT showing anger is also a way to keep your opponent(s) off-balance and unsure.

An old maxim: "Your own uncontrolled anger is a weapon for your opponent."

But not all anger is wrong (as is felt by our current society) -- righteous anger has it's place. Even Jesus Christ was angry when he drove the moneychangers from the Temple.

Rmaxd said...

Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married

In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.

Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore “the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.”


Rmaxd said...

Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.”

In “How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families,” he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.

Sen Grothman: realtalker. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the good senator has been perusing the Chateau archives.

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. “It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools,” he wrote. “It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

Rmaxd said...

The act of shaming women away from the single momhood cesspit and cutting off the flow of their financial lifelines is good for the women, good for America, and good for Western civilization.

And most importantly… it’s good for the children. Especially those children who have evaded the misfortune of being born to selfish single moms.


Rmaxd said...

The above is what a real mans anger at women can achieve.

Fighting without anger achieves nothing, anger & a hate for social injustice & the very real dangers of women

Of course women will tell you not to hate, hate & anger & a call to arms, are always a mans form of empowerment

Any woman who tells you not to hate the society around you, & what giving women the vote has done to it, is a man hating shrew

Women are to blame, they asked for man hating laws, any woman who tells you not to blame women & their criminal acts of murder & theft against men & our children, is a walking shame of ignorance

Anonymous said...

"Sen Grothman: realtalker."

More like realhypocrite. Grothman has also either advanced or supported policies to make access to health services aimed at pregnancy prevention more difficult.
Guess folks like him won't be happy until all women are trussed up permanently in chastity belts while the men are all Viagraed up with nowhere to go.... the dairy cows in that State best be afraid, very afraid.

Anonymous said...

Stigmatizing righteous anger is one of the main mechanisms used to squelch activism by groups whose rights are being violated. "You have no credibility because you are angry and bitter."

Um, yeah, I'd say so.

The blacks in the US from 1865 till around 1965 were at physical risk of lynching. Their daughters were raped with impunity. They were forced out of many southern towns to live in tents. When the young men wanted to fight, the older men told them, "No, we must be above anger. We must show them we are dignified people."

A lot of people think MLK won the Civil Rights Movement. He did not. Sure, he made the black people feel really good about themselves, but to win Civil Rights, the haters had to be changed. The racists laughed at MLK. They did not laugh at X and his automatic firearms. The racist people I knew admitted they were going to shut their racist mouths because they feared X was going to come and kill them.

The Jews in N. Germany also were told not to resist, that their natural dignity would lead the Germans to respect them. Now, they say, "NEVER AGAIN."

Those who violate men's human; legal; civil; and Constitutional rights say they pay no attention to men who are angry. And, then, they say, well, most men, the ones who do not show anger, are obviously content with their lot, so no problem found.

In all these cases, there was violence as a solution. Why? Because the people who make the bad things refuse to listen to peaceful, dignified dissident speech. The only thing they respect is violence, then they wonder why they get violence.

I am not suggesting MRA's participate in violence. The violence that changes the US will probably be from external sources.

Why participate in violence when you can move to another country that treats men well, and in which you can marry a traditional domestic wife?

As far as anger harming you, the very best activists thrive on rage.

Anonymous age 69

Anonymous said...

>>Guess folks like him won't be happy until all women are trussed up permanently in chastity belts while the men are all Viagraed up with nowhere to go.... the dairy cows in that State best be afraid, very afraid.

Let me see if I understand you. The only two choices are total promiscuity for women, or truss them up in chastity belts? Sure sounds like standard feminist extremism to me.

I would say the era when you can say disgusting things like that and have anyone view you as a sane person, is over. Just saying.

A man named Alvin Toffler wrote a book some years ago, Future Shock. He said at times change came so fast that many people could not keep up.

In 1965, men who wanted to be primary bread winners suffered from Future Shock.

Today, the women who think men exist only to serve them are suffering from Future Shock. They encounter men who are starting to speak up as they should have done in 1965, and they think those men are stark raving insane. The next few years are going to be hard on American women who know of no other way of life except to scold and curse men.

Anonymous age 69

Anonymous said...

"Let me see if I understand you. The only two choices are total promiscuity for women, or truss them up in chastity belts? Sure sounds like standard feminist extremism to me."

You will never understand me if your understanding is limited by your adherence to such a rigid dichotomy. Are there only two possible choices in everything? Sure sounds like standard manosphere extremism to me.

"I would say the era when you can say disgusting things like that and have anyone view you as a sane person, is over. Just saying.

So my non-adherence to a strictly dichotomous viewpoint will make people question my sanity. I can live with that. After all, it's difficult to move forward when you're stuck in a quagmire.

Double Minded Man said...

Anon, you speak of someone not understanding you as if you give a way for anyone to do so. Pick a freaking name already.

And Anon 69 was right from what you posted. What you wrote clearly implies an all or nothing viewpoint

Curiepoint said...

Stay mad? As a man, I find it more productive to my life to just remain completely apathetic.

Anonymous said...

curiepoint makes a good point. One valid choice for men we call inpatting, to distinguish it from expatting. Moving to another nation.

Inpatting involves complete celibacy, complete avoidance of woman, and marriage.

Different men have different needs, and there are many who find total apathy to be the best choice.

I chose expatting. I do not want to live in a nation which views law abiding men as criminals based only on their sex.

Anonymous age 69

curiepoint said...

I would choose expatting if I thought it would make any difference, but I don't believe it will. Plus, there is no real need to anymore. Allow me to tell a story to make a protracted point:

About a year ago, and without health insurance, I went to see my doctor, who determined that I am diabetic. She subjected me to an MRI (that's $3000 please) of my pancreas, and found something on my left kidney. She then wanted me to return for a second one "with contrast" what ever the heck that means; another $3000 I don't have. I declined because I believe doctors get one shot at diagnosis. If they blow their first one, they don't get a second one.

As a result, she refuses to re-fill my prescription for Metformin until I submit to her money-sucking will. Hence, untreated diabetes.

The point of all this is that I no longer have any sensation "down there" so sex is of no importance to me anymore. Women have lost power over me and my life for good. I will keep to myself, and wait for the Lord to take me when He deems it the proper time.

There is no reasoning behind staying angry. In the end, you die alone; might as well live alone beforehand.