How to be Loved for your True Authentic Self as a Man

Roosh V put an article up on July 18, 2014 (republished on his Return of Kings site on April 19, 2016) with the provocative title “The Death of Male Authenticity.” This article is wrong headed on a number of different levels from my point of view. It is selfishly oriented rather than being idealistically oriented. It pretends that the man is operating from helplessness being trapped by his circumstances rather than the man asserting himself taking on an orientation of strength and purpose. It throws in a distortion of how society worked in the past traditionally to explain or justify why things are worse today. It strangely presents women as the cause of male inauthenticity, that women are forcing men to be inauthentic, rather than acknowledging that men are freely choosing to be inauthentic precisely to “get what they want” from women. It presents women as a consumption item, something to get love and sex from, rather than women being a cause or a purpose or a higher calling that you as the man sacrifice for to enable your desired purpose as a man through her.

The very theme of the article, the sadness and tragedy of men not being able to be authentic with women, itself is actually selfish and self-referencing in orientation because the problem with inauthenticity from Roosh V’s point of view is that it compromises the enjoyment he gets from his relationships with women. In other words the problem with inauthenticity is not that it is dishonest, that it is manipulative, that it goes against whatever higher moral purpose one is hoping for in a relationship; instead the problem is simply that being inauthentic doesn’t feel good and makes the relationship less enjoyable and rewarding.

As Roosh V states in the opening paragraph of his article:

“I noticed that the more I’m myself in a relationship with a woman (as I see myself), the happier I am with her. On the other hand, the more I have to change my behavior in line to what I think she would find attractive, the less satisfaction I get from that relationship. While “being yourself” is not the key to getting laid, it may be the key to being satisfied in relationships.”

The concept of “being yourself” is interesting. It implies letting down your guard, relaxing, feeling secure that the other person won’t leave you or punish you if you “say the wrong thing,” doing what you want to do and expressing how you really feel and being accepted for it. There is another aspect of “being yourself” that implies laziness, doing whatever the hell you want, being self-absorbed and not caring about the other person’s needs and interests; in short the absence of performance pressure. The part of “being yourself” that is based on feeling secure in a relationship and therefore feeling free to be honest is good; the part of “being yourself” that is lazy and self-indulgent is not so good.

I believe what Roosh V is complaining about the most regarding his inability to be authentic with women is that being inauthentic is an intimacy blocker; if he is not showing women the “real him” then the woman cannot love or validate or accept or approve of the “real him” because he is not giving the woman access to the “real him” in the first place. Now the reason why Roosh is hiding his “true self” from women is because he doesn’t want to be rejected or punished by the woman. The thing that needs to be kept in mind however is that Roosh is presenting an inauthentic version of himself precisely to get the reward of approval and in particular sex from the woman in the first place. Roosh is the one deciding to be inauthentic for his own calculated gain and purpose, and then Roosh complains that his own strategy is backfiring against him, and then to top it all off Roosh claims to be unable to escape from his self-created predicament as if he is not capable of changing his behavior to get a different and better result.

The answer to this dilemma of inauthenticity is for your authentic and true self to be attractive to and desirable to and in particular of benefit to women. Remember you as the man should actually have it as your goal to benefit the woman, not just trigger in the woman attraction and “tingles” that you then can convert into sex but to actually benefit the woman so that the woman will rationally come to the decision that being with you romantically is something that will benefit her life. If you want to enter into a relationship with a woman as your true and authentic self then your true and authentic self has to actually for real be desirable to and attractive to women not just in a flashy way but in a deep and real way; in a way that combines indicators of masculine performance (what makes the man attractive to women in the first place) with real and actual masculine performance over the long term. There are no short cuts, if you want a real intimate secure long term relationship with a quality woman you have to develop yourself for real into the kind of man such a woman will want to be with.

Roosh V said in his article:

“One reason the game is not worth it for some men is because we are forced to be actors and clowns in the presence of women for transient sexual gain. I would do 1,000 approaches if it meant the next girl would unconditionally love me for who I am and will become for all eternity, but this is an absolute impossibility where girls can survive without men. Instead I will have to dance and juggle for her, fuck her maybe 10 times, but more like 4 or 5, and then the relationship will get stale, neither of us able to find the will or motivation to continue because of the type of 20th century environment we were born into by no choice of our own.”

First off Roosh is choosing to be an actor and a clown as a calculated strategy to get the “transient sexual gain” he is looking for; if Roosh doesn’t like the results he is getting he can choose another way of looking at women. Roosh is then proclaiming that what he really wants is a “girl [who] would unconditionally love me for who I am and will become for all eternity.” Interesting thing to want from a woman. We call such a woman a wife, don’t we? Though I’d quibble over the “unconditional love” part; there are expectations of obligations one is expected to fulfill on behalf of their wife. Roosh then proclaims that such a traditional marital union is impossible today in the modern world because women can now survive without men.

On this point, the point of women’s dependence or lack thereof upon men today as compared to the past and how this affects relationships Roosh V said:

“In more ancient times, relationships were much different than what we experience now. Back then, when a woman valued a man’s resources for her very own survival, the man could more or less be himself since there were less options for her to walk away YOLO-style and immediately find another man. He acted the opposite of what we have today, where most men apply a filter to their natural impulses in order to keep their women in a permanent state of being attracted. Today we do what we believe or know that women will like in a way to minimize our rejection rate and maximize the quantity or quality of sex or love that we receive. We apply rules, techniques, and strategies to meet women, because without them it would not be possible to achieve intimacy.”

I think Roosh is seriously confusing here how men thought in the past and why things worked the way they did in the past. In the past men were taught to financially support women, men were taught to be in charge of their relationships with women as a duty consistent with their male role, men were taught to obey and fear God first and foremost. It was then with that foundation that men then entered into marriage with a woman. The success of the traditional marriage then being based on this taught and supported male performance that the man then brought to the marriage; this combined with the female performance that was expected of and taught to the woman.

As far as women in the past being dependent upon the man’s resources for her own survival; you have to keep in mind that in the past any man a woman would marry would financially support the woman. If you as the man were not willing or able to financially support the woman there was something seriously seriously wrong with you; certainly a man could not expect a woman to marry him if he was not up to the most basic responsibility a man has to support his wife. In addition a woman who wasn’t married could expect to be supported by other male relatives; in particular her father. The support and protection of women was a very high priority in traditional societies. A woman in the past indeed was dependent upon men in general but she was not extremely dependent upon any one individual man.

Today a man willing and able and expecting to take on the role of financially supporting his wife is a novelty and a prize; it is not just taken for granted and assumed as it was in the past. This means that today a breadwinner man has even more leverage and prestige in relation to women compared to how things were in the past where the man as breadwinner was just assumed and a basic minimum requirement to be able to get married in the first place. Even though a woman can physically survive without a man today (just like in the past where a woman had multiple sources of potential support to turn to) it is still true that in order for a woman to lead her best life as a woman she still needs the support of a man to do so, support that is harder for a woman to get today as compared to the past since today there is no cultural standard that women are supposed to be supported by men while in the past the cultural value that women are to be supported by men was very strong.

So Roosh is totally wrong that traditional marriages allowed men to be more authentic with women in the past compared to today because women were more dependent upon men in the past compared to today. Instead men were able to be authentic in their traditional marriages because the real true character and qualities of the man were attractive and desirable and beneficial to the woman in their own right. You don’t have to fake it when the real you itself is desirable and manly and caring and idealistic; then the real you will be plenty to catch and keep a desirable high quality woman.

I must say the very orientation that the ultimate goal is to impress women to then get what you want from women is wrong headed. The primary goal should not be to please the woman; the primary goal should instead be to serve the woman. God or the Superior Power or ones objective moral duties towards others has to be in the picture somewhere. The goal is to be good, as a man you want to treat the woman well and live up to your duties and obligations to the woman. You serve the woman because serving the woman is moral and good in its own right. You don’t serve the woman just to create a positive reaction that then benefits you as your pay off or reward; the moral act in service of the woman’s objective interests is its own reward. You love the woman, you maintain control of your relationship with the woman, and you serve the woman (you serve the woman primarily by financially supporting her). You do this as your duty to God or simply because it is the right thing to do. The woman then decides if what you offer is what she wants. If she doesn’t want your authentic true self that you show to her or offer to her then she is not the woman for you. If what you have to give to a woman is of real value to a woman then you can be sure that another woman will want you even if the woman you may currently be most interested in turns you down.

You want to make sure that you as the man are in control of things and at the same time that you are meeting the woman’s needs and being good to the woman that you desire. An orientation to serve God first as your primary moral obligation and duty is the way to pull this off; it is what allows you to be in charge of things and meet the legitimate needs of the woman at the same time. It is what allows you to be authentic and desirable at the same time. Serving God is what gets you out of the selfish mindset of giving to the woman only to get something out of her in return and allows you to enter into the mindset of service as an expression of your masculine identity and your love for the woman. When you yourself are then living according to this ethic of service then you can impose upon the woman the standards of performance you expect from her in order to protect your own interests as the man in the relationship.

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Relationship Dynamics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to How to be Loved for your True Authentic Self as a Man

  1. This was really well said. Sometimes I wonder, how can they not see this? It seems so obvious to me and sad, too. It’s like a self fulfilling prophecy. What Roosh is doing is projecting his perceptions of himself onto women. He gets back exactly what he gives and what he gives is disrespect, games, and a lack of intimacy and authenticity. He will lament that loss more and more the older he gets and someday he will wake up full of regrets.

    “It strangely presents women as the cause of male inauthenticity, that women are forcing men to be inauthentic….”

    Once again, there goes that brave and manly alpha image. Wahhh, the girls just won’t let me be authentic, they’re all oppressing the menz again.

    • Crystal says:

      Agreed 100%. I might be pro-feminist but I think we have certain commonalities we can discuss, such as this for instance. When women know men don’t respect them, why should they respect men? Well said comment.

      • Truth and Reality says:

        That goes both ways. When men know women don’t respect them, why should they respect women? When women file for divorce and take the kids just because they are bored with men, then why should men marry and have kids with women?

        If there was a legal system in which a man could divorce a woman, take the kids, take all of her assets and force her to pay child support even for children that are the result of his extramarital affairs, wouldn’t you call that oppressive? Well, that’s what men have to go through.

      • Crystal says:

        That’s an interesting perspective you put out there. Although I tend to think children should belong to the mother I can also see where you are coming from, and I believe it’s the parent who has the child’s best interests at heart and can look after them best who should get the children, regardless of which sex they belong to. That doesn’t mean the system isn’t unfairly rigged against women; I know of a case where the woman was perfectly entitled to raise the children but her ex-husband committed adultery with another woman and took the children away from her. There’s nothing fair about that either. Furthermore, in an abusive relationship the abusive parent shouldn’t be the one raising the children, regardless of sex. Therefore it’s an ability thing rather than a gender thing in my mind.

  2. FightingForever says:

    Why are men so incompetent that the end up being divorced? Why can’t men help out at home? Why don’t men be pleasant and undivorceble? Why don’t men listen to women when the woman speaks and says This Is Going To Make Me Divorce You? If being divorced is so painful, why dont men figure out how to avoid being the type of idiot who is divorced? Why don’t men be good to thieie children and deserve looking after the children?

    • FamilyFirst says:

      Why are women so incompetent that they wind up divorced and poor, assuming they even marry at all? Why do they keep producing kids they can’t support and then rely on the state for abortions, welfare and social services? Can’t they attract and retain decent, hard-working men? Why do single mothers often wind up raising criminals? Why are women more likely to kill children and 60 percent of the victims are male children? Why can’t women be sweet and caring instead of angry and vengeful? Why don’t women listen to men for a change and try to do things for them instead of always expecting a man to do everything for her? What type of idiot has kids with a loser she doesn’t know, blames him for all of her problems and then expects the state to compensate her for her bad choices? Why can’t women think about their men and children instead of their own selfish needs all of the time? Single fathers do a whole lot better raising children than single mothers do – why is that? If divorce is so painful and devastating, why do women do it? Don’t they care about the family? Are children just property to women – to dispose of or use as meal tickets whenever the woman feels like it? Are men just cash slaves to women? Why can’t women be good to men and children?

      • Crystal says:

        “Why can’t women be sweet and caring instead of angry and vengeful?”

        Because men have beaten and betrayed us so much, and now we are still expected to endure it with a smile. We won’t do that anymore. You have a point about divorce (I agree that divorce should never be done flippantly). But women pick losers because they are encouraged to, not because they’re genetically wired to. And half the time they don’t know initially that they are losers, and expect and trust these men to keep their word to them. You have a lot of problems – alcohol, drugs, etc. I admit that both men and women are to blame for the problems in our society so I will not say it’s all men’s fault because it isn’t. However if men are supposed to be the leaders then I want to see them treat women as people.

  3. FamilyFirst says:

    Maybe that’s because so many women have beaten their sons while they were growing up and now they don’t know how to respect women. Single moms are more likely to raise criminals. What do you mean women pick losers because they are encouraged to? By whom? Don’t blame poor choices on others. Plus, women are more likely to initiate violence in relationships so you can forget the men have beaten and betrayed women so much – sheer misandrist nonsense. Who said men are supposed to be leaders? Anyone can be a leader as long as they take responsibility for their actions and women can’t make decisions that adversely affect them and others and then expect society to come to the rescue. That is not leadership.

    • Chia maria says:

      Stop sounding so petty and whiny. It’s so unmanly (though it’s typical of red pillers to do that). You’re trying too hard to prove a point to us. I’m flattered that you think we’re worth investing such time in, but are we really worth it? You’re not worth it for me, which is why I don’t bother to engage in arguments with you, though there is much I could say (and anyone else for that matter). In the process of trying to “prove a point” to us you’ve just exposed how bitter and desperate you are with yourself and your own life. You have issues and need to help yourself. It’s painfully obvious. Sorry if it’s harsh (to Jesse) but he is seriously asking for it.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Stop being so hateful, unintellectual and vengeful. Who said I was a man? You try to shame someone without even knowing who they are. It’s so unhuman (though typical of misandrists to do that). You are trying too hard to ignore the suffering of men because you clearly hate them. No, misandrists are not worth it but the men and boys who suffer are worth it. When you say that I am not worth it, what you are saying is that you can’t keep up with me on an intellectual level so now you are trying to trivialize the real issue. I have proven my point countless times. You are so bitter and desperate because no decent man wants you. You see, successful people can spot losers and they just move on past them. A great man will not choose you for his mate. A great woman will not choose you for her mate either for that matter. You are obviously too angry, self-entitled and uncaring to attract a great man so now you want to trash all men and any woman who supports men. You are the one with issues and that’s obvious from your posts. Sorry if the truth hurts (to you) but you seriously asked for it. Go to bed thinking you won something but you know you really haven’t. The loneliness is getting to you. Learn to be a better human before the hate consumes you.

      • Chia maria says:

        Oh dear. I was right.

      • Crystal says:

        You have my upvote.

      • Crystal says:

        @FamilyFirst, there was nothing wrong with what Chia Maria said. If anything she is asking you to treat women with respect; she is more traditional-minded than I so I don’t see the need for you to chew her out.

      • Chia maria says:

        Thank you Crystal. It just sounds like Familyfirst (or whatever he calls himself now) just came on here with a biased, misogynist agenda. No one here hates men. I respect them highly and have a very healthy relationship with the men in my life, I just don’t respect a specific sect who happens to wish the general female population harm and constantly point the blame at them while sitting behind their computer screens, feeling sorry for themselves and going “waaaaahhhh me!”, without even thinking about how they can improve on themselves. That’s what I speak out against, not against men in general.

      • Crystal says:

        @Chia maria,

        You are absolutely welcome. I could see he was not treating you fairly, and I believe you totally when you say you respect men except for the ones who want to make it all about themselves, and you should not! I believe we actually have a lot more in common than we realise; we just tend to go about it differently (for instance, I embrace feminism and you don’t). I also respect men (or try to; I do not respect men who want to hurt and demean women and it is very hard to keep from mentally applying their actions to all men) when they are making an effort to treat me like a human being, plus with the genteelness my sex deserves. I speak from a traditional viewpoint here, more than from my own: if a man desires to lead – or at least to be respected as a man and as a person – he MUST listen to the women in his life telling him why they are offended with his behaviour; such input will not only help him become more of a gentleman but also win him the reverence of the fair sex. Although I must add, a man should behave decently because it is in his moral code, not because he wants favours from the ladies, for men do NOT deserve cookies for behaving like decent human beings and appreciating and accepting the input of women – mothers, sisters, wives. This is the problem with these types (and yes, even with some men who call themselves “feminist”; I had a bad experience with one of those!) – they will not listen to women but will rather seek to hijack everything for themselves. If men say they want to see women treated with respect, then a listening ear and communication is crucial. While we respectfully disagree on the benefits and downsides of feminism (I enjoy reading your comments BTW because I find your viewpoints on some of these issues fascinating), it bothers me greatly when women who tend to choose an anti-feminist way because they feel this is the best way to respect men are being treated impertinently by smug, smart-mouthed punks who can’t be bothered at even a semblance of caring for and listening to the traditional-minded woman’s perspective because they are king and they know it all.

      • Chia maria says:

        Thank you darling :). Yes some of our viewpoints do align, no doubt. While I am more traditionalist, I am aware of the fact that a woman submitting herself to a man risks being exploited and taken advantage of as she relinquishes her power and allows herself to be at his mercy. She risks being look down upon as someone who’s stupider and inferior because of the tasks she undertakes. It is also a dangerous risk as women are generally a lot smaller and weaker than men, and it’s not exactly easy for her to control a man who’s wayward or violent, whereas it’s easier for a man to control a woman by restraining her and, if she’s uncontrollable, just walk away. I suspect that this may be why feminism was born to begin with, because there were no doubt some men who exploited their power over women rather than using it correctly. I mean, imagine being constantly seen as weak and worthless and not contributing to anything, you’d just go “You know what? F*** you. I’ll show you how it can be done”. In that sense I am somewhat sympathetic to the first feminist movement. Of course there would have been women among the feminist movement who had a real personal agenda against men and were out to get them, but I don’t agree with that. For instance, when my sister gets into an argument with her husband, he has been known to say to her “What do you even DO around the house? I work, I bring in the money. You don’t do anything” and she retorts with “OK. How about I go back to work full-time, and you hire a cook, a cleaner and a nanny for our three children and we’ll see how you fare monetarily in the long run.” If this is what women were faced with all the time (and I can’t say for sure, just speculating), then no wonder women got fed up and maybe even started resenting their own feminine qualities precisely because they were seen as inferior. No woman that I know of says to her husband “What do you even DO at work? You just sit in your cushy chair and do nothing.” and working in an office doesn’t exactly take great brain-power either. Most jobs don’t require great genius unless you’re inventing something or researching something groundbreaking. You might run around from meeting to meeting, sure, but women also run around doing errands for the house and the kids. The differences are that she doesn’t get paid, promoted or get sick leave. A rather thankless job.

        However, where we differ is that I do believe feminism in some cases just goes way too far where women try to take on everything, thereby rendering men redundant. Men have their own important role in society, and when a woman does her own duties as well as a man’s, well, really, why DOES she need a man? Other than for his sperm and that’s it. Some men do indeed feel that that is all they are needed for. Also when women guilt-trip men for trying to be chivalrous towards them, thereby killing the unique charming dynamics between men and women. I know of a case where one man believed in giving up his seat for women on the train, and there was one woman who he offered his seat to and, instead of merely thanking him and declining his offer, she says “I do have a perfectly good pair of working legs, you know.” Like WTF? It’s these women who kill chivalry, and then they turn around and say “Where are all the real men these days? Men don’t respect us anymore!!”. You can’t have it both ways. Worse yet, when you have songs by artists like Beyonce and Pussycat Dolls who sing “I don’t need a man”. This kind of stuff can’t be pleasant for men to hear either. And I actually hate those kinds of songs too. They don’t strike a chord with me. No “Girl power!” here. Imagine if a male singer came on board and wrote a song titled “I don’t need a woman”? Oh there’d be a terrible uproar. So then men sit back and go, “What’s the point? I’m basically told by society that I’m not needed. So I’ll show you what it’s like without a man and see how you feel.” Hence maybe the MGTOW movement. No wonder some men think that that’s all they are, sperm donors. Then women who insist on being equal with men, but then when they are in a relationship, they begin to disrespect the man PRECISELY because they are equals and he’s not taking the lead. Like what do women want? Make up your minds.

        Of course, these issues are much, much more complex and what I’ve written above is just a snapshot. However, all that being said, I can’t help but feel that some men also use feminism as an excuse to relinquish their duties as men, thereby making themselves redundant. Like MRAs who pick and choose the traditional bits that are good for them, but then also pick and choose the feminist bits that are good for them too. If a man were a real man, he wouldn’t be afraid to stand up despite feminism and go “Listen, I’m the man, I am going to do this. I don’t care what society thinks of me. If I want to take the lead, I’ll take the lead. If I want to be chivalrous, I’ll be chivalrous.” etc. This is why I’m not sympathetic at all when I see men online going “Poor me. I’m sooooo oppressed.” They are part of the problem too rather than the solution and it’s pathetic they don’t see that because, in my opinion a man by nature is supposed to be the leader, and he’s violating that when he allows women to usurp his authority, even if women make it hard for him by ridiculing him etc. and therefore he has no one to blame but himself. No one’s ever said “You can give up and step down as a leader” just because the people you were managing were being rebellious or difficult. Of course, if you have a different view about whether or not a man should be a leader, then you’ll be coming from a different standpoint. This is why I respect guys like Jesse because they’re unconditionally willing to rise above all that mess and stand up for what they believe in, even if it’s against the status quo. They think in terms of the bigger picture rather than “tit for tat” petty crap that abounds.

    • Crystal says:

      Society encourages – no, pushes for – it. Check out Twilight saga, Fifty Shades of Grey, and other such books. Christian Grey is THE PERFECT MODEL for women according to our rape-culture oriented society. He is nothing less than an abusive bastard despite his earning, like, millions a year. Women are encouraged to desire brooding dominators rather than loving egalitarian protectors, constantly. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Game of Thrones (rape scenes abound in that series). Rape is normalised as “fuzzy consent”. We’re also socialised to accept male-dominated religion such as Islam and Christianity as “normal” and never to question it lest we cause offence to the male adherents. A truly feminist society would put equality first, not religion.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Feminism is not about equality, it’s about feminine privilege. People who care about equality should call themselves equalists not feminists or masculinists. If a person called her/himself a whiteist, would you believe that they cared about racial equality? No, you would think they care about white privilege. If you believe that Islam and Christianity are male-dominated religions, then what is your example of a female-dominated religion? Have any females created female-dominated religions and why would they be better than what you call the male-dominated religions? There have been female priestesses in the past and a lot of them called for sacrifices. Islam and Christianity brought more respect and honor to women than the pagan religions. You should review your history more accurately.

      • Crystal says:


        Where is the “respect and honour” for women in the koran? I leave verses up for your perusal:

        So please – and I mean this respectfully – kindly pardon me for not believing Islam respects women at all. Muslims like to say, (and I’m speaking facetiously, not against *you personally* but rather against wrong ideas) feminism was, rather than created by independent-minded Western women, revealed by a great big windbag from heaven to an obnoxious little psychopath called Mohammed, who then became one of the greatest serial killers in history, ranked alongside Bundy, Manson, and Hitler. Funny thing, Mohammed advocated for the scourging – yes, scourging of wives (koran 4:34), raping of wives (koran 2:223) and a lessening of belief of women’s testimonies in court (koran 2:282), among other abominations. If men were being treated like this it would be equally as outrageous. I have referenced the koran, a book Muslims respect as “scripture” to prove my points and that is why I strongly – and kindly – disagree with your assertions that “Islam respects women”.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        You do realize that women tend to be fans of those shows, right? And if you include prisons, men are more likely to be raped than women are and men are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes. Furthermore, women are more likely to abuse and even kill children (usually male children) and let’s not even include abortions. It seems that society pushes for women to be violent and get away with it all while claiming that they are victims. We seem to have an angry woman aggressor culture that is growing all of the time.

      • Crystal says:


        What “shows” do you mean? If you’re talking about Twilight etc, then I think the reason for that is the great push to make abuse palatable to women, because we live in a society that devalues equality between men and women.

        “And if you include prisons, men are more likely to be raped than women are and men are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes. Furthermore, women are more likely to abuse and even kill children (usually male children) …”

        Could you please cite a source or two to let me know where you’re getting your information from? Due to my observations of history, I tend to believe that men suffer more physical violence (such as flogging etc) and women suffer more sexual violence. That doesn’t mean it’s always that way but it tends to be that way.

        “and let’s not even include abortions.”

        Why do you say that, and what do you believe about abortion? Just curious. BTW no need to worry about my getting angry with you on this one; I’m PL.

        “It seems that society pushes for women to be violent and get away with it all while claiming that they are victims. We seem to have an angry woman aggressor culture that is growing all of the time.”

        Really? Could you cite a couple of examples for this, whether culturally, media-wise, etc?

        I suppose we could say the same for guys, with an angry man aggressor culture that is growing all of the time as well – Fifty Shades being only one of many examples of this. That being said how do you recommend that we stop this culture of aggression against both men and women?

      • FamilyFirst says:

        What shows? The shows you mentioned in an earlier post. I do believe that women can think for themselves. If those are the shows they want, then that’s what they want.

        More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal.
        In 2008 it was estimated 216,000 inmates assaulted in detention.
        Four per cent of prisoners said they had been sexually abused in 2011.
        Department of Justice introducing regulations to tackle high rates of abuse.

        Read more:
        Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

        I said that abortions aren’t included in the figures I mentioned. There are those who say that abortions are murder.

        To observe the dynamic and prevalence of intimate partner violence of men and women in heterosexual relationships, Dr. Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire, conducted a survey collecting data from a large cohort of students. More than 1,000 students — 706 women and 398 men with an average age of 24 — responded to the questionnaires. The students were asked about their physical aggression and controlling behavior to partners, and to same-sex others, including friends.

        The findings revealed just as many women as men could also be classed as abusive, coupled with controlling behavior with serious levels of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. Women were more likely to verbally and physically aggressive to their partners than men. “This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men. “It wasn’t just pushing and shoving,” said Bates, Medical Xpress reported. Some of the survey respondents circled boxes for things like beating up, kicking, and even threatening to use a weapon.

        I definitely believe we should stop the culture of violence against both men and women although I tend to think that violence towards men tends to be more acceptable in society.

      • Crystal says:


        Just wanted to add, that I recognise that our society does have a problem with men not being given as much care in a domestic violence situation when they are the victims. People do tend to believe the word of a woman regardless of how accurate it is, and I think that we need to stop judging by sex and start judging by the testimony of a victim regardless of sex.

        Have you read these articles, because I read one of them, and I didn’t realise it was this bad:

        Feminists like Naomi Wolf would argue that men fighting for custody of their children is a sexist backlash against the original backlash or some such similar sentiment; I’d like to know your thoughts on that.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        It’s funny how feminists fought to change the roles of men and women and to make them more equal to each other. This means that women should now be able to pursue careers and men should now be able to pursue closer relationships with their children. So when men request joint custody, it’s a sexist backlash? When women seek careers, are they engaging in sexist backlashes? Why are certain people threatened by those who exercise their choices? What ever happened to progress?

    • Crystal says:

      Traditional roles insist that men be leaders, protectors, and providers. If they are supposed to do these things then they’ve done a shoddy job, as you have proved so eloquently in your replies.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Well, most of the great inventions were created by men. And there have been plenty of female tyrants. Feminists don’t create wealth and resources – they simply demand that wealth and resources be redistributed according to their terms. If you want women to be leaders, protectors and providers, then you can’t keep demanding more subsidies. Someone has to pay for those subsidies. So go out there and create the resources needed to advance all humans instead of criticizing a group of people who can’t seem to meet your expectations of them.

    • Crystal says:

      “Anyone can be a leader as long as they take responsibility for their actions and women can’t make decisions that adversely affect them and others and then expect society to come to the rescue. That is not leadership.”

      Explanation, please? Ironically that’s a very egalitarian understanding of the issue. That being said, you mean we should have no rescue shelters for men OR women in abusive relationships???? If you’re going to state that DV survivors created their own problems due to their being female then you’ve done it to your own sex as well.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        We can have rescue shelters for humans but at the same time we have to help them develop the skills and tools needed to better their own lives and to become productive, independent people. I believe in solutions. Yes, people need help and they should be helped but the greatest help is to foster independence and productivity as much as possible.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I never said that DV survivors created their own problems due to their being female. In fact, there are many male DV survivors. Studies also show that women are more likely to initiate violence in relationships. It appears that society cares even less about male DV survivors than they do about female DV survivors.

    • Crystal says:


      I wanted to add, in regards to your culture of aggression assertions, that I do know that men who are abused by their wives are less likely to receive the help that they need during a crisis, and that people will tend to believe a woman’s word regardless of how accurate it is when it comes to these cases. I think we need to stop judging the veracity of a testimony by the person’s sex, and start judging it by the word of a victim regardless of their sex. Is this the kind of thing you are talking about?

      Have you ever read these articles, because I read one and I didn’t realise it was this bad: (this is the one I read)

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Yes, it’s a shame that any domestic violence victims are ignored and even treated badly by society. Sometimes I think that we have made no progress at all.

  4. FamilyFirst says:

    You mean that you’re petty and whiny? Yes, you were right.

    • Chia maria says:

      Ummmmm, no. No where was I the one whining. As you can see, half the latest comments are monopolised by you. Lol.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Ummmmm, yes. You were doing the whining. As you can see, I was responding to your comments, Crystal’s comments and FightForever’s comments so all of you were the ones who are trying to monopolize the conversation. I came in and brought up a new viewpoint and you can’t handle it because it’s so contrary to your biased way of thinking. Lol.
        Yeah, keep thinking you are winning something but you keep proving that I am so important to you that you just keep feeling the need to respond. I mean, what else could you possibly have to do? Believe it or not, there are many women who have great relationships with men and they don’t blame men for their problems. Lol.

      • Chia maria says:


  5. FamilyFirst says:

    You wish.

  6. FamilyFirst says:

    Crystal and Chia maria (if you are not the same person)

    I was disrespected because of my point of view. Chia maria tried to shame me by claiming I was petty, whiney and unmanly. She doesn’t even know my gender. What does unmanly mean? Does she define manliness? Are men supposed to just accept oppression? Anyone can be a victim and all victims should be treated with respect, dignity and compassion. Chia maria seems to think that because I stand up for male victims, I am disrespecting women. That is sexist. It is misandrist. I will not be silenced.

    Why is it when someone talks about the problems men face, they hate that person? They call men who complain and stand up for themselves crybabies -waaaahhh? Why? Do only women have the right to complain? People blame men for their problems but when someone points out that women cause problems too, people get angry? It doesn’t work that way. That is unfair and misandrist.

  7. FamilyFirst says:

    Crystal, you keep saying that no one listens to the traditional women’s perspective. Women’s perspectives have always been listened to. Laws have always protected women. Men were required by law to provide for women. Both men and women had privileges but they were different privileges. Feminists wanted to obtain men’s privileges and that’s fine but they didn’t give men any of the women’s privileges. They didn’t fight for joint child custody or for women to be drafted in wars. They want the right to abort the children they don’t want and obtain child support and welfare for the children they do want but can’t support without asking the man what he wants. The man is just supposed to support whatever the women wants – that is not equality, that is feminine privilege. if you want total equality, fine, but then that means equal privileges and equal responsibilities.

  8. FamilyFirst says:


    Women are always going online and saying “Poor me. I’m soooooo oppressed.” Women go on talk shows and all forms of media claiming that they are oppressed. Even women on this blog have done this. Do you feel sympathy for them?

    Men have always been oppressed more than women have. Men have been abused, raped, forced to work at dangerous jobs and fight wars.

    Kampala, Uganda. For four years Eunice Owiny had been employed by Makerere University’s Refugee Law Project (RLP) to help displaced people from all over Africa work through their traumas. This particular case, though, was a puzzle. A female client was having marital difficulties. “My husband can’t have sex,” she complained. “He feels very bad about this. I’m sure there’s something he’s keeping from me.”

    Owiny invited the husband in. For a while they got nowhere. Then Owiny asked the wife to leave. The man then murmured cryptically: “It happened to me.” Owiny frowned. He reached into his pocket and pulled out an old sanitary pad. “Mama Eunice,” he said. “I am in pain. I have to use this.”

    Laying the pus-covered pad on the desk in front of him, he gave up his secret. During his escape from the civil war in neighboring Congo, he had been separated from his wife and taken by rebels. His captors raped him, three times a day, every day for three years. And he wasn’t the only one. He watched as man after man was taken and raped. The wounds of one were so grievous that he died in the cell in front of him.

    “That was hard for me to take,” Owiny tells me today. “There are certain things you just don’t believe can happen to a man, you get me? But I know now that sexual violence against men is a huge problem. Everybody has heard the women’s stories. But nobody has heard the men’s.”

    It’s not just in East Africa that these stories remain unheard. One of the few academics to have looked into the issue in any detail is Lara Stemple, of the University of California’s Health and Human Rights Law Project. Her study Male Rape and Human Rights notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of wartime or political aggression in countries such as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. Twenty-one per cent of Sri Lankan males who were seen at a London torture treatment centre reported sexual abuse while in detention. In El Salvador, 76% of male political prisoners surveyed in the 1980s described at least one incidence of sexual torture. A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped.

    And only recently have we come to understand the extent to which boys and men are also targets of sexualized violence during conflict even if the fear of sexualized violence at the hands of other men during war is clearly understood by combatants. In a recently released video, Islamic State Jihadists from Iraq and Syria expressed a primary concern this way: “They will come and rape the men before the women.”

    Three women tortured a man by pressing burning hair tongs and a cigarette lighter on to his genitals when they found he had dated three people at once, a court has heard.

    The trio also taunted the victim with a pizza cutter in what was described as like a scene from Reservoir Dogs.

    Lorraine Earles, 47, Natalie Lilley, 19, Leah White, 22, along with male defendant Brendan Teale, 27, had plotted revenge on the victim for allegedly seeing several women at a time and lured him to a flat in Scarborough before strapping him to a chair.

  9. FamilyFirst says:

    You typed: “This is why I’m not sympathetic at all when I see men online going “Poor me. I’m sooooo oppressed.” They are part of the problem too rather than the solution and it’s pathetic they don’t see that because, in my opinion a man by nature is supposed to be the leader, and he’s violating that when he allows women to usurp his authority, even if women make it hard for him by ridiculing him etc. and therefore he has no one to blame but himself.”

    Wow, what a sexist, misandrist statement. A man is supposed to be the leader and when he allows women to usurp his authority, he should blame himself according to you? And how should he prevent women from usurping his authority? Explain that.

    So if a man stands up to a woman, he is an abusive, controlling jerk. But if he allows her to dominate him, he deserves to be humiliated?

    Look at how men are treated. You clearly have no respect for men.

  10. FamilyFirst says:

    You typed: “Most jobs don’t require great genius unless you’re inventing something or researching something groundbreaking. You might run around from meeting to meeting, sure, but women also run around doing errands for the house and the kids. The differences are that she doesn’t get paid, promoted or get sick leave. A rather thankless job.”

    Being a parent doesn’t require great genius either. If you feel being a parent is a thankless job, then don’t become a parent. Single people without children do errands too. Cooking, cleaning, shopping and earning a paycheck is what everyone has to do unless they are lucky enough to have others do it for them. Women staying home and raising is the kids is a rarity nowadays. It is a luxury most women can’t afford to have. Many men work at thankless jobs too for low pay just to support their families. Why aren’t they appreciated? And why does society seem to look down on stay-at-home dads?

    Again, it sounds as if some people want the privileges without the accompanying responsibilities.

    • Chia maria says:

      Listen, just go to bed. Nothing you say is revolutionary or original.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Listen, just go to therapy. Nothing you have said is revolutionary or original – more whining and male-bashing. You don’t care about male victims. You have no compassion. You are sexist. I will not be silenced.

      • Chia maria says:

        Ah yes, the typical copy-someone’s-insult-and-use-it-on-them thing you do. How mature. I predicted you’d do that and was sadly proven right. At least come up with your own material. Look, I’m actually beginning to feel embarrassed for you. Being a spokesperson for the manosphere and regurgitating their BS isn’t more OK just because you’re a woman. It’s actually sad because it sounds like you’re doing it to please the menzies. “Oh look at me, I’m a woman and I can still bash my own gender. Love me! I’m a keeper!” Would you like a cookie baby? *pats you on the head* Goood girl! For some reason you keep feeling the need to prove a point to me even when I’m not even talking to you, and I’m flattered, but it’s not working.

        I’m not trying to silence you. You’re free to speak up. Go ahead and make me laugh some more. I’ve heard this manosphere stuff before, but it does get a little boring over time. No compassion? I’m not the one who replied to a woman who recently came on here talking about her abusive past in order to write a spiel about how men are also abused. You had no right to piggyback on her story like that. It’s like a victim saying “I was raped by a man” and you say “Yeah, well men get raped too”. How would that even be relevant? She was talking about her personal experience and hers alone. In no way was she implying most men were like that, but you had to make it a competition about men vs women and who gets abused more instead of simply offering your compassion and well wishes. I would never do what you did to anyone, man or woman. That was very poor form on your part and I was appalled. You can talk about men being abused, but on another platform. That wasn’t the time nor place.

        And yes, I am sexist, thank you for noticing. 🙂

  11. FamilyFirst says:

    Yes, I am using your techniques. You don’t like them? Well, that’s what you do to people who disagree with you so maybe you should think about that. So now you know that you are the immature one. I held up a mirror to you and you didn’t like what you saw. I predicted that would happen and I was right. 🙂

    Speaking up for all humans and yes, men are humans contrary to what you may think, is always the right thing to do and it is morally and ethically required. Speaking up for all misandrists is sad because you want to please the man-haters who eventually will turn their hatred onto you. That has always been the course of history. Speaking up on behalf of male victims who are often neglected isn’t bashing women. Only a disturbed person would think that. In fact, when you bash men, you only hurt your own gender. An assault on any human is an assault on all humans. It’s sad you can’t see that.

    You think I am trying to prove a point to you? I don’t really care about you. You are not the center of all existence even though you obviously need that. I am trying to stand up for all victims. I suppose when no one flatters you on a daily basis, you try to create it from any attention someone gives you. Sad, but if that keeps you going, well, to each her/his own.

    I don’t think I am making you laugh. I think I am making you realize how sexist you are and it disturbs you. Your whole personality centers around blaming men for everything and your sense of identity is being challenged. Women seem to use their abuse history to justify bashing all men and when I bring up the fact that men are often abused by women, these women get angry. Now they have no excuse to bash men. Men have personal experiences with regard to abuse too. They should be heard too. Why do you feel threatened by that?

    That is a very poor form on your part and I think you realize that. You are too stubborn to admit it but you know you behaved badly. You are proud of being a sexist? Sad. How can you expect anyone to feel compassion for you when you won’t feel compassion for anyone else? If you did have terrible personal experiences with men, maybe it was your attitude that brought it on. You seem like a confused, frustrated, angry person and that won’t attract a successful, happy, caring man. You need to change your attitude if you want a better life.

    Yes, you want to be noticed, but in the wrong way. Change that. 🙂

    • Chia maria says:

      You really need to get better material if you want to be seen as a good comedian. Right now my laughs are moderate but not full on.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        You really need to see a qualified therapist if you want to be seen as a normal, functioning person. There is nothing funny about male victimhood. If someone found female victimhood to be funny, wouldn’t you consider that someone to be mentally and emotionally disturbed? Get help.

      • Chia maria says:

        Feeling’s mutual.

  12. FamilyFirst says:

    No, it’s not. The only “feeling” you have is misandry so there is nothing mutual about it.

  13. Crystal says:

    Interesting. From what I see of complementarianism and patriarchy (and, I might add, matriarchy as well), these belief systems promote being loved for what you *do* rather than for what you *are*. Your innate personhood and your biological sex (I speak cis language) never changes but your actions change from day to day depending on what you believe and how you feel. This seems to set up a sort of conditional appreciation to me. I mean, one day a man might want to use a chainsaw, and the next he might want to don an apron and do all the housework so he can spend time with his wife later. Are you saying that men should be less loved for cooking a meal than for chopping up wood?? Because that, as I said, is awfully conditional reasoning, and would set up a real insecurity complex in people if their love depended on what they did. However if you believe in egalitarianism this problem disappears completely because, whether you’re crippled and can’t provide for your wife or you like pumping up your biceps for the ladies, you’re equally worthy of personhood – and manhood – regardless of your choice.

    • FamilyFirst says:

      Why do you keep claiming I say things I don’t say? Men and women should both be loved for all of the great things they do, but they are not. Society still does not care for men who want to be nurturers. Society still does not care for men who want to be stay-at-home dads.

      Women can be modern feminists who take on careers or they can be traditional stay-at-home moms who nurture the family and society respects both choices. But society does not care for the men who does not have the great career or who is a nurturer.

      Men are still expected to provide. And despite what you and many feminists claim, I don’t think most women would want a man who stays home, cooks, cleans, and raises the children while being supported by his wife.

      In the past, both men and women were equal because they were both locked into certain roles where men were the providers and women were the nurturers. Society needs both. But then women said they wanted to be providers too. Great. But what about the men who want to be nurturers?

      Nowadays, women want men who have promising careers and do the chores while the women make all of the decisions and relegate the men to the role of assistants – she takes the credit for the successes while he takes the blame for the failures. And when the man doesn’t comply, the woman dumps him because he won’t follow orders so he is a sexist jerk. But even when the man complies, the woman dumps him because he is a wimpy loser for whom she loses all respect. That is not equality.

      • Crystal says:


        I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming *you personally* were saying things that you don’t say but that was *not* my intention at all. I was simply sharing my opinion on the article in question!

        That being said I agree with the rest of your comment and would like to expound on why I agree with it further, at a later date.

        Please understand that I come here to debate in good faith and please do not ascribe to me motives I do not have. I have no desire to attack you or anyone else on here for holding a different view; I would rather be friends than enemies with people whether I agree with their views or not. If you could tell me where you got the idea I was attributing words and ideas to you that you did not say and do not believe, please do. Thanks in advance.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I would also like to be friends and to engage in a good-natured, intellectual debate. I am glad we agree.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        You asked me the following: “Are you saying that men should be less loved for cooking a meal than for chopping up wood??” I never said such thing nor do I believe I was implying that I believed such a thing. I think that men tend to be shamed by society in general when they are nurturers rather than providers. Society needs both nurturers and providers.

      • Crystal says:


        You said the following:

        “You asked me the following: “Are you saying that men should be less loved for cooking a meal than for chopping up wood??” I never said such thing nor do I believe I was implying that I believed such a thing. I think that men tend to be shamed by society in general when they are nurturers rather than providers. Society needs both nurturers and providers.”

        Please know my rhetorical question was NOT addressed to *you personally* but rather to the author of the article. In cases like this I tend to use a collective *you* rather than an individual one. Also, on this forum, I tend to try to reply by using @person’s name – not always but often, if I am addressing someone. Due to this incident I *now* realise the miscommunication could have been avoided if I had only thought to say that this was NOT a personal attack on anyone but rather a rhetorical question; honestly I never thought someone would think I was attacking them through not making it clear because I assumed that everyone would know it was rhetorical; but I shall try to make this clear in future!

        I know I’ve said this but I feel I need to say it again – that I am not on a crusade to attack or blacklist anyone for simple disagreement with my position. I will defend myself if someone is cruel, but disagreement is not a sin, and I think the way people are treated for expressing a different view online is shameful and I do not want to contribute to that subculture of petty spite and hostility.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Well, if the question wasn’t directed at me, then that’s fine. I thought it was. To avoid this problem, you may want to state clearly who you are addressing when asking questions. I do agree that people are treated terribly just because they have a different viewpoint and that should stop.

      • Crystal says:


        “I would also like to be friends and to engage in a good-natured, intellectual debate. I am glad we agree.”

        Great then! I’d rather be friends than enemies myself. Disagreement shouldn’t equal hatred. I realise some feminists probably wouldn’t talk like this but I am more interested in the spirit of dialogue than upholding any particular agenda. Here is an article which somewhat describes my attitude on the topic of disagreement:

        “I think that men tend to be shamed by society in general when they are nurturers rather than providers. Society needs both nurturers and providers.”

        I like this statement because egalitarianism – a philosophy I try to subscribe to – insists that everyone has a different nature regardless of sex/gender. They do get shamed due to traditional ideas that men MUST provide for women and children, we know that – but they *are* providing by the simple act of nurturing and caring. They might not be providing in a conventionally masculine way, ie finances, but they are still fulfilling the provider function by their nurturing. If more men were encouraged to nurture we would have stronger marriages! I definitely want a nurturer for a future husband and I would want to nurture him as well.

        Let us say for sake of argument that men *must* be leaders because God ordains it. We both know that neither of us subscribes to this theory but would it not make sense that, if men were to be the leaders of the family, that they must nurture them tenderly and cherish their wives and children, in some cases in the way we suppose women to do this? I realise that might be a confusing question but if it is I’ll be happy to clarify.

        How do you personally think that we can reduce this shaming impact, and change the cultural attitudes towards nurturing men so that society becomes more supportive of them as people? I really would love to know your thoughts on this if you wouldn’t mind sharing them.

        PS: You are one of the first persons to recognise any feminist tendencies in me via online services. TBH I am in shock over this one because I have been accused of NOT being a feminist due to disagreeing with the party line on some issues people think you have to support to be a good feminist.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I think part of the problem is that people seem to confuse equality with interchangeability. We all have to go out and have careers, and not just normal careers, no, we must rise to the highest point in our careers. Anyone who isn’t rising to the top is falling to the bottom according to today’s standards.

        But there are different ways of being successful. Most people aren’t going to become presidents, vice presidents, CEOs, partners and so on with big paychecks. What’s wrong with someone who loves her/his family and friends and helps them to grow into wonderful, happy, productive persons? Social workers, teachers, counselors and stay-at-home parents are also needed in order to keep society viable and stable.

        If society consisted entirely of CEOs, society would fail. If society consisted of all teachers, society would fail. We need diversity. We need people to handle different roles. We are not interchangeable, we are diverse. We should recognize the different talents, abilities and needs that different people have and reward them rather than focus on those who are good at bringing in the big paycheck. A social worker, a stay-at-home parent and a CEO all bring value to society and they are all equal even though they are not interchangeable.

        As far as you being a feminist – you do use some arguments that feminists use. Feminism has taken over many aspects of the culture and many people may automatically assume feminist positions even though they may not call themselves feminists. I personally don’t care about labels. I think we should focus on all humans.

  14. FamilyFirst says:


    I don’t know why you brought up the Koran but it can easily be argued that the Koran doesn’t respect men.

    “A man, who is supporting his family, should know that a woman is also a human being like a man. She also has desires and the rights of freedom and life. Marrying a woman is not hiring a servant, but it is a selection of a partner and a friend who would be able to live with for the rest of one’s life. Man has to care for her and her desires. Man is not the owner of his wife and in fact a woman has certain rights upon her husband.”

    So a man has to care for a woman and her desires but the woman has certain rights upon him? Isn’t that pretty much what all of the religions and society in general believe? That men must be the providers and take care of others and if they can’t, then they are not men. How is that respect for men?

    • Crystal says:

      I brought up the koran because you said that Islam respects women, in order to prove that it does NOT respect women. The koran is the sourcebook for islamic belief and practice and that is the best place to start if you truly want to understand islam. People depend on the wrong sources to understand religions – they go everywhere except for the literal texts.

      I will address your other argument at a future date.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        It can easily be argued that all religions respect and disrespect men and women, depending on the interpretations of various religious passages.

        Islam considers a woman, just like a man, to possess a human soul, will and choice, and perceives her to be on the path of spiritual perfection, which is actually the purpose of human creation. It is for this reason that it has placed man and woman alongside each other, addressed them together:
        ياَ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ
        ياَ أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا
        and imposed moral, educative and scientific curriculum upon both of them.

      • Crystal says:


        Which unabrogated koranic verse(s) or hadiths can you use to back up your position?

      • FamilyFirst says:

        I have already given you some examples. I am not interested in doing an intensive analysis of the Koran or any other Holy Book. Anyone can find passages in any Holy Book that can be interpreted to mean discrimination and disrespect. Holy Books should be interpreted with love, kindness and understanding, not with aggressive intentions.

        For example, you mentioned one interpretation – God has ordained men to be leaders. That may not be the exact and proper interpretation of the Holy Book. Remember, Holy Books were written at a different time. At one time, men were expected to do a lot – work, fight wars, defend women and children, hunt, build, agriculture and so on. They didn’t have technology then and women had to stay at home and deal with the difficult and often deadly process of giving birth. Since men don’t have to give birth, they were expected to give a lot more to the community whereas women were expected to give more to the family. Since more was expected of men, they had to be respected as leaders. But if men couldn’t be leaders because they weren’t strong enough, or didn’t have the temperament, then they were vilified.

        Technology came along and you don’t need to be physically strong in order to be a leader; furthermore, it made giving birth more easy. This means that it takes different qualities to be a leader in today’s world and men and women don’t have to adhere to the ancient roles. A leader is no longer just someone who can fight off invaders but rather someone who can nurture and care for others as well.

        I would say that leaders are those who can help society grow and that would be a better interpretation of the Holy Book than merely saying men are ordained leaders.

  15. FamilyFirst says:

    “I know of a case where the woman was perfectly entitled to raise the children but her ex-husband committed adultery with another woman and took the children away from her.”

    If that’s true, then the woman must have had serious issues, which led the court to believe that she should not have custody of the children. Courts don’t just automatically award custody of children to the father.

    Also what do you mean the woman was “perfectly entitled” to raise the children? Children are not entitlements. They are a great responsibility and raising them must be earned. Children don’t belong to anyone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s