posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:36 PM
I want to add another statement to this thread, in order to be what I consider entirely fair to women, as well.
I had a father who I've only been able to describe as a patriarchic fascist. I have seen numerous other examples (such as George W. Bush) which have
strongly indicated to me that male chauvanism is no more beneficial for human society, than matriarchy or rabid feminism.
With that said, I have consistently observed that the "Men's Rights," community online are also what I would consider fascist. They are generally
upset about the fact that they are not socially permitted to have an authoritarian role within contemporary society, when truthfully I consider them
being denied that role, to be a positive thing.
I don't believe that the pre-60s familial or social model was necessarily any less dysfunctional or pathological than the current one. Child sexual
abuse and homosexuality still happened. The only real difference was that back then, all of that was swept under the rug, and buried under a veil of
etiquette and hypocrisy; there were things which it simply wasn't considered acceptable to talk about in polite society, but every family had the
same sorts of secrets, for the most part. Parents screwing around, the son or daughter being gay; it still happened.
As a man, I don't want to dominate women or other people. I also don't want to be accused of being a "beta," or a "wuss," simply because I
refuse to behave like an amoral sociopath, and falsely equate that with masculinity. My primary male role model, or one of them, to the extent that I
can manage it, is Buckminster Fuller. I consider his level of appreciation for science to have been an extremely masculine thing, but one which was