Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Will American Boys Grow Up To Be Men?

I've been explaining feminism, and refuting its fallacies, for many years. All the while, I've been hoping that some brave and articulate men would speak up against the stupidity of trying to move us all into a gender-neutral society. Finally, a man has done this. I am so happy to read a newspaper column by Dennis Prager that tells it like it is. He says how important it is for society to get boys to grow up to be good men. He points out that if men learn how to control themselves and to channel their nature in positive directions, they make the world a much better place. The good man is a glory of civilization. On the other hand, males who don't grow up are likely to do a lot of mischief, and women and society suffer.

Dennis Prager criticizes the feminist movement for trying to obsolete the ideals of masculinity and femininity. He criticizes the feminist dogma that male and female are essentially the same. Prager points out that the feminists have created a society in which men no longer have distinctive roles. He says that men do best when they are relied on, when they are needed, when they have a role that is different from women's role. The feminists have worked hard to obliterate these distinctions. Traditional differences still exist only in sports and the military, and the feminists are trying to get rid of men's sports and to make the military gender-neutral. One of the worst aspects of this feminist attack on masculinity is that marriage is increasingly regarded as optional. The male ideal is no longer a married man, protecting and supporting his wife and their children.

Dennis Prager concludes that, when boys do not become men, women assume the man's role. The feminists say that's what they want, but all surveys show that women are not as happy as they were 40 years ago under the old rules of masculine and feminine identity. Thank you, Dennis Prager, for saying some things that need to be said.

Listen to this commentary:


Anonymous said...

This is the best comment I have heard on Feminism. I love to listen to Phyllis but do not always get it on the Christian radio at a time I can listen. I am delighted I can now hear it on the web site.
I was married to a lady who was just that, "a lady" and I as a man loved that she was very different from me, the way God created women to be. She like most other females I was surrounded by bought into the Feminism lies and I watched as my value as a man diminished as husband and father. I tried to maintain what I believe to be my God given role to love, protect, and honor my wife, but due to a change in thinking these were perceived as "chauvanistic" I actually opened the door for a "lady" and she angrily stated, "I can open the door for myself!" I told her I did not open the door only because she was a lady, but because I was a man."
My wife 3 years ago developed an incurable virus and died in the intensive care of our hospital. If God still has a feminine lady for me, fine, but otherwise I have no desire to marry a lady that acts like a man. Most ladies I have encountered fall into this catagory and I am sorry this result of Satan is true. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I appreciate the fact that there is at least one lady who sees things from what I believe to be God's idea of the roles of man and woman. Not superior to each other, but having very different roles and abilities.

Anonymous said...

Phyllis, the same survey you point to which says that women are unhappy is also the same one which says men have never been happier.
And frankly, as a man, I think it's antifeminists like you who are truly prejudice against men. You assume that we're all a bunch of natural-born rapists and savages that can't control ourselves unless trained like dogs by women such as yourself. Women like you who are selfish, spoiled, and lazy and not willing to contribute equally to society, even though they are perfectly capable of it. Women who instead enslave men and force them to do all the work. Well let me tell you, I don't need a woman like you enslaving me. I admire feminism because it liberates men by teaching us that we are not natural-born aggressors and that we are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves, and that we are naturally sensitive. I don't need to waste my time with a family in order to gain self-control or be happy.
And one more thing, Phyllis, the reason that women today are not as happy as they were in the 1970s is because of you and because the ERA did not pass. You are responsible for the suffering of millions of innocent people because your selfishness. But one day it will pass, and you will be defeated. Then women will truly be happy.
So go on and fantisize about the foolish misogynistic men like Prager. But just know this, a gender-neutral society is inevitiable. Why? Because after 100 years feminism has not died. And I, a man, am forever loyal to the feminist cause.

Anonymous said...

Sir, you are under no obligation to open a door for a woman. Please explain to me how it's reasonable for one gender to be forced to open a door for another simply because they have different genitalia? It makes no sense. It sounds like your wife came to her senses.
And let me explain to you why that women was offended by you. Number one, you made a fool of yourself in front of her by acting like you're her slave, so of course she was offended by that. I hate to break it to you, but when you said that you were doing it because you were a man you did not more than demean yourself.
Number two, opening the door for her makes her feel like she's incapable of doing it herself. And being a woman is not a handicap. If you want to be polite, then open the door regardless of gender. Do it for both men and women just to be polite. Because saying that a man is obligated to open a door for a woman is like saying that Black people are obligated to open doors for White people.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Phyllis has never even hinted that she believes that men are "all a bunch of natural-born rapists and savages that can't control ourselves unless trained like dogs by women such as yourself." THAT particular idea originated with the feminists that support VAWA and similar legislation. They want the courts and police to automatically ASSUME that if a woman files a charge or complaint against a man, particularly in the areas of child custody, domestic violence and divorce, that what she says is the truth and that the man is always a batterer and/or rapist. They would never allow for a man to tell his side of any story.

Anonymous said...

We must understand that the war on marriage cannot be won by criticizing feminists. We must ignore them and outdo them. The Center for Marriage Policy will provide a very solid set of Marriage Values policy and the persuasive arguments necessary to launch Marriage Values as a national issue. We will take the greatest problems America faces, including those of unmarried individuals of both sexes, and put them in a position to end the majority of poverty, home foreclosures, stressed-out single moms, and men who can't support two households. This is an agenda that everyone except the far left will gravitate to naturally.

David R. Usher

Anonymous said...

A scary by-product of feminism and gender neutrality is it drives us away from each other. More and more we hear of things like marriages with both people living separately, people opting for homosexuality or just living between intermittent encounters. What is lost is true love, no matter how you cut it. Women and men are different it’s just that simple. Whether we want to admit it or not natural roles do exists. If it’s so good why are so many people turning away from each other, why are so many people on prescription or illegal drugs...just to help them get through the day-to-day? Answer: because it’s not natural, that for all the calls of injustice the feminist is angry against nature. We are fast on our way to a collective of drones. Unable to think because of political correctness, imbalanced because our mind, body and souls are saying something different than what culture says and incapable of experiencing the fullest of God’s greatest gift which is love.

Anonymous said...

But what you do is the same except the opposite. You assume that all men accused of rape have to be innocent and all the women are liars.
Besides, any rape victim(whether it's a man or woman, I'd like to strongly point out) should always be assumed to be telling the truth. Because if they really are a victim of rape, it would be traumatizing them a second time to not believe them. And if the rapist(whether it be a man or woman) is telling the truth, then they certainly have a chance to prove it in court.
And this doesn't necessarily mean that it would always favor one gender over another. For example, if a man claims that a woman has raped him, then one should always believe the victim in order to avoid further traumatization, and if the rapist is innocent, once again, they have their chance to prove it in court.
And on the point about Phyllis' additude towards men. I encountered one of Phyllis' followers, who reads all of her books, and she said that any man who is naturally sensitive has something wrong with him, and that men need to be "trained and taught" by women how to be sensitive. I, a man, had never heard anything more perposterous. Now I wonder where she got that nonsense from?
Oh, and by the way. If the Equal Rights Amendment had passed in the 1970s, men could have used it against the wives that twisted the message of feminism and abandoned them. All they had to do was argue that they were being discriminated against in divorce court because of their gender, which I will admit many have been because some individual women have perverted and taken advantage of feminism.
And on the issue of marriage. But no, you really only hurt yourselves by opposing the ERA, and all for a bunch of tripe, such as unisex bathrooms. The ERA is a part of the state constitutions of 30 states, tell me why none of them have unisex bathrooms? And don't point to Ginsburg's book. Even liberals will tell you it's nonsense. Especially, since it's been nearly 40 years in 30 states and none of her predictions came to pass. Not that it matters, if you really think the amendment is dead your fooling youselves. Oh, there are many ways in which it could return. And you may find it could be to your benefit, because as I've said, men could use it to argue against the unfair treatment they get in divorce courts.
Now of course you're going to scream at me because the divorce rate is so high. Oh, and that "true loves being lost" was cute, but deceptive. George Friedman, who is conservative, wrote a very interesting book called The Next 100 Years. Go on Google books and read Chapter 3. You'll be enlightened. You'll see that the very reason the divorce rate is high is because your so-called "true love." In Traditionalist marriage the man loves his wife the same way an abusive parent loves their children. Oh, they'll beat the living daylights out of the child and put them down daily, but it's only because they love them and know what's best. Can you feel my sarcasm?
Really, marriages lasted longer 200 years ago because they were forced together by economic necessity. Today, that is no longer the case, people only get married for love. But love comes and goes. Marriage certainly did last longer generations ago, but that doesn't mean they were happy marriages.

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.